The Majority in Parliament has strongly rejected claims by the Minority that the Bank of Ghana (BoG) understated its 2025 financial loss, describing the opposition’s interpretation as incorrect and methodologically flawed.
Responding to the allegations, Sagnarigu MP and member of Parliament’s Finance Committee, Atta Issah, maintained that the central bank’s audited accounts were properly prepared, fully disclosed, and consistent with established accounting standards.
The Minority had earlier argued that the BoG’s real loss far exceeds the reported GH¢15.6 billion, suggesting that when other comprehensive income is included, the figure rises to GH¢34.9 billion—and could reach nearly GH¢44 billion when adjusted for gains from gold transactions.
Also read: NDC drives Bank of Ghana into policy insolvency – Minority
They further alleged that accounting adjustments and gold-related transactions were used to obscure the true extent of the Bank’s financial position.
But the Majority dismissed this interpretation, insisting that the figure captured in the audited report is definitive.
“The audited financial statements clearly report a loss for the year of GH¢15.63 billion. This is derived from total operating income of GH¢22.28 billion and total operating expenses of GH¢37.91 billion,” Mr. Issah stated.
“It is the official, audited loss. It is not a political figure. It is the figure presented in accordance with applicable accounting standards.”
Central to the disagreement is the treatment of other comprehensive income (OCI), which the Minority added to the headline loss to derive a higher figure.
The Majority rejected this approach, stressing that profit or loss and OCI are distinct accounting components.
“The Minority’s claim that GH¢15.6 billion plus GH¢19.3 billion equals a ‘true loss’ is incorrect,” the statement said.
Explaining further, the Majority noted that OCI largely reflects non-cash items such as unrealised valuation changes, exchange rate movements, and reserve remeasurements.
“These are non-cash. They do not reflect operating performance. They are not distributable losses,” Mr. Issah emphasised.
“Other comprehensive income is reported separately and cannot be added to construct a different loss figure.”
On the controversial gold transactions, the Majority defended the GH¢9.57 billion gain recorded from the sale of refined gold, stating that it was properly disclosed and audited.
“This is not artificial revenue. It is a realised gain from asset reallocation,” the statement noted.
“Central banks manage reserves, including gold. Rebalancing assets and realising gains is standard practice.”
The Majority also dismissed the Minority’s GH¢44 billion loss estimate, arguing that it is based on flawed methodology.
According to them, the figure relies on double-counting of valuation effects already captured in OCI
Removal of legitimate realised income, and construction of a metric not recognised under any accounting framework.
“There is no audited or recognised figure called ‘underlying loss’ constructed in this way,” the Majority stressed.
The debate has also spotlighted the BoG’s negative equity position, which rose from about GH¢61 billion to GH¢93 billion.
However, the Majority cautioned against interpreting this as a single-year loss, explaining that it reflects cumulative balance sheet pressures.
“These include the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme, monetary policy operations, and exchange rate valuation changes,” the statement said.
The Majority acknowledged key cost drivers identified in the financial statements, including GH¢16.7 billion in open market operation (OMO) expenses, exchange rate effects, and gold-related valuation impacts.
“These arise from policy actions taken to stabilise the economy,” Mr. Issah said.
“They are not evidence of misreporting. They are the cost of policy.”
The Majority insisted that the BoG’s disclosures were transparent and complete.
“Nothing is hidden. The issue is not transparency. The issue is interpretation,” the statement concluded.
“The audited accounts are clear. The disclosures are complete. The numbers speak for themselves. What is required is careful reading, not selective interpretation.”