Accra, Ghana – The Majority caucus in Ghana’s Parliament has countered accusations from the Minority regarding the Bank of Ghana’s (BoG) financial performance, particularly concerning its rising losses in 2025. The dispute, ignited by the central bank’s audited financial statements, centers on the interpretation of the BoG’s financial health and the drivers behind its reported losses and negative equity.
Context of the Financial Disagreement
The debate was sparked by the release of the Bank of Ghana’s audited financial statements for 2024 and 2025. The Minority had previously highlighted a trend of narrowing losses from GH¢13.23 billion in 2023 to GH¢9.49 billion in 2024, followed by a significant jump to GH¢15.63 billion in 2025. They also pointed to a substantial worsening of the bank’s negative equity, suggesting a policy-driven deterioration.
Majority’s Rebuttal: Stabilization Costs, Not Collapse
In a detailed response attributed to Atta Issah, the Sagnarigu MP and a member of Parliament’s Finance Committee, the Majority argued that the Minority’s interpretation fundamentally mischaracterizes the BoG’s financial trajectory and the reasons behind it.
The Majority contends that the developments in 2025 are a direct consequence of structural, policy-driven actions consistent with central banks undergoing post-crisis normalization. They assert that the Minority errs by treating central bank losses as if they were akin to commercial business losses.
“A careful reading of the audited statements shows that the developments in 2025 are structural, policy-driven, and consistent with central banks undergoing post-crisis normalisation,” the response stated. “The financial statements show that a significant portion of the loss arises from exchange rate revaluation effects and monetary policy operations, especially liquidity management.”
These costs, the Majority emphasizes, are deliberate policy choices aimed at stabilizing inflation and the national currency, rather than indicators of operational inefficiency or governance failure.
Questioning the 2024 ‘Recovery’ Narrative
The Majority also challenged the Minority’s assertion that 2024 represented a sustained recovery path for the central bank. While acknowledging the narrowing of losses in 2024, they attributed this improvement to temporary exchange rate conditions and one-off valuation adjustments.
“These were not structural gains,” the Majority’s response clarified, noting that the financial statements themselves indicated the potential for such improvements to reverse based on macroeconomic conditions. “Presenting 2024 as a sustained recovery path is selective and misleading.”
Drivers of the 2025 Loss Increase
According to the Majority, the increase in losses in 2025 is clearly explained within the Bank of Ghana’s report. Key factors cited include higher interest costs stemming from open market operations used to combat inflation, ongoing exchange rate and foreign currency revaluation effects, and the lingering legacy costs from the 2022-2023 crisis, including the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme.
“These are not new policy failures. They are the continuation of stabilisation measures and the lingering effects of earlier interventions,” the Majority stated, framing these as necessary steps in macroeconomic management.
Negative Equity: Operational, Not Insolvency
Addressing the widening negative equity, which the Majority acknowledged reached approximately GH¢93.8 billion, they maintained that this does not signal insolvency. Central banks, they explained, can continue to operate effectively even with negative equity, supported by their statutory backing and sovereign guarantee.
Continuity in Policy, Not a Shift
The Majority also refuted claims of a sudden policy shift at the Bank of Ghana. They pointed to the bank’s reports, which they say demonstrate continuity in inflation targeting, exchange rate stabilization efforts, and alignment with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) supported program.
“There is no evidence of a policy shift that explains the outcome the Minority is suggesting,” the response asserted. The Majority characterized 2025 as a crucial “stabilisation year” where inflation was successfully reduced, the exchange rate was stabilized, and fiscal consolidation efforts advanced.
“What the Minority describes as a ‘reversal’ is, in reality, the financial cost of completing macroeconomic stabilisation. The numbers must be read in context, not in isolation,” the Majority concluded, urging a nuanced understanding of the central bank’s financial operations in the context of its mandate.
Looking Ahead: Macroeconomic Stability and Policy Costs
The ongoing debate highlights the complex interplay between monetary policy actions and a central bank’s financial health. As Ghana continues its path towards sustained macroeconomic stability, the financial implications of these stabilization efforts, including the costs associated with managing inflation and currency fluctuations, will remain a key area to watch. Investors, analysts, and the public will be keenly observing how the Bank of Ghana navigates these challenges and manages its balance sheet in the coming fiscal periods, particularly in relation to its ongoing commitment to IMF program targets and domestic economic recovery.
Leave a Reply