Vice President of IMANI Africa, Bright Simons, has raised serious concerns about Ghana’s Gold-for-Oil programme, arguing that the policy was based on weak economic logic, poorly implemented, and ultimately led to significant losses that should be thoroughly investigated.
Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, October 4, 2025, Mr. Simons gave an in-depth assessment of the initiative, which was introduced at a time when Ghana was struggling with currency depreciation, rising fuel costs, and mounting pressure on its foreign reserves. The scheme was presented as an innovative response to these challenges, but according to him, it failed to achieve its intended goals.
He explained that Ghana’s energy sector has long been burdened by structural weaknesses. Although the country owns two major refineries, both operate far below their installed capacities, leaving Ghana heavily dependent on imports of refined petroleum products. This dependency costs the country between $250 million and $400 million every month and creates a recurring demand for foreign currency, especially the US dollar, which in turn exerts pressure on the Cedi.
The Gold-for-Oil policy was conceived in 2021 and rolled out in 2022 as a way to circumvent these pressures. Government officials argued that since gold is mined locally and can be purchased in Cedis, it could be exchanged directly for oil on the international market, thereby reducing the need to draw on scarce dollar reserves. The idea, on the surface, promised to ease pressure on the Cedi while securing a steady supply of fuel.
However, Simons argued that the model was economically unsound from the start. “The barter arrangement would only make sense if it could be demonstrated that exchanging gold directly for oil gave Ghana a better deal than selling the gold for dollars and then using those dollars to buy oil. At no point was this case made or backed with evidence,” he explained.
He further revealed that the structure of the programme was riddled with inefficiencies, partly due to weak oversight and the lack of transparency in transactions. The failure to subject the policy to rigorous scrutiny meant that the scheme operated under questionable conditions that made financial losses inevitable.
“The design and execution of the programme created serious inefficiencies. Instead of reducing costs, it generated new risks, some of which translated into material losses for the state. These are not trivial; they are losses that could and should have been avoided,” Simons stressed.
He also warned that the programme had the potential to encourage rent-seeking and corruption, given the opacity surrounding how gold was acquired, priced, and exchanged for oil. Without a transparent framework and public accountability, the initiative risked becoming a channel for mismanagement and profiteering rather than a tool for economic stability.
Simons concluded by calling for a thorough investigation into the entire programme, suggesting that accountability should not be ruled out, including the possibility of legal consequences for those who oversaw its flawed execution. “What Ghana needs now is a clear and independent probe into how this programme was managed, who benefited, and how much the state actually lost. The country cannot afford to let such policy missteps pass without accountability,” he said.
The IMANI Vice President’s comments add to the growing public debate on the Gold-for-Oil initiative, which was once touted by government as a bold and innovative intervention but is now facing increasing criticism for its lack of transparency and its failure to deliver value for the Ghanaian economy.
