The Ghanaian government’s proposal for a Gold Board has sparked significant debate and calls for clarity, particularly from Samuel Abu Jinapor, the Member of Parliament for Damongo Constituency and former Minister for Lands and Natural Resources. Jinapor argues that the government’s current explanation of the Board’s purpose raises more questions than answers, potentially undermining investor confidence in the country’s vital mining sector. While the Gold Board forms a key component of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) manifesto, its precise role and function remain ambiguous, causing concern among industry stakeholders.
The government’s stated objectives for the Gold Board include regulating the gold industry, stabilizing the national currency (the cedi), and maximizing revenue from gold exports. Finance Minister Dr. Cassiel Ato Baah Forson inaugurated a technical committee to develop the Board’s framework, echoing President John Dramani Mahama’s emphasis on the Board’s role in effective governance of the gold industry. However, these pronouncements have fueled apprehension within the mining sector, especially given the existing legal framework and institutions already tasked with regulating the industry.
Jinapor highlights the existing regulatory structure, comprising the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, the Minerals Commission, the Minerals Income Investment Fund (MIIF), and the Bank of Ghana. These institutions currently oversee the exploitation, management, and utilization of Ghana’s gold resources and the revenue generated. The proposed Gold Board’s role appears to overlap with these existing bodies, raising questions about its necessity and potential for redundancy. Jinapor questions how the Board will coexist with established institutions like the Minerals Commission and whether it will usurp the statutory functions of the Minister for Lands and Natural Resources in granting gold export licenses, as well as the Bank of Ghana’s role in the gold trade.
The Bank of Ghana Governor’s statement that the Gold Board will eventually absorb the Bank’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme adds further complexity. This raises concerns about the potential displacement of private sector actors who have invested heavily in the gold trade, especially if the Board assumes sole responsibility for gold purchases and exports. Such a move could stifle private sector participation and potentially create a monopolistic environment.
Jinapor urges the government to provide a more comprehensive and transparent explanation of the Gold Board’s mandate. He cautions against duplicating the functions of existing institutions and emphasizes the need for clarity to maintain investor confidence. While acknowledging the potential benefits of additional measures to maximize returns from mineral resources, he stresses the importance of avoiding redundancy and potential conflicts with existing regulatory bodies.
Ghana’s mining regulatory regime is internationally recognized, and any changes should be implemented transparently and cautiously. Jinapor warns against secretive or surreptitious actions that could jeopardize Ghana’s hard-earned reputation in the mining sector. He emphasizes the need for a clear and well-defined role for the Gold Board, one that complements and strengthens the existing regulatory framework rather than creating confusion and potentially undermining the sector’s stability and growth. A thorough public discourse and consultation with stakeholders are crucial to ensure the Board’s effectiveness and avoid unintended negative consequences for the Ghanaian mining industry.
