In January 2023, Ghana introduced the bold Gold‑for‑Oil (G4O) scheme to ease fuel inflation and protect its foreign reserves by swapping gold—not dollars—for petroleum. But just over two years later, the program was shut down after racking up a staggering GH¢2.137 billion in losses.

What Happened?

  • Launched: December 2022 – amid soaring fuel prices (GH¢23/litre diesel; GH¢17 petrol) and a weakening cedi.
  • Mechanism: The Bank of Ghana purchased local gold (via GoldBOD) using cedi, sold it through brokers, and credited dollars to pay for fuel imports—bypassing foreign exchange reserves
  • Result: Despite injecting GH¢4.69 billion into the scheme, the bank lost nearly 45% of its investment—GH¢317 million in 2023 and GH¢1.82 billion in 2024
  • Termination: On 13 March 2025, the Bank announced its exit, citing unsustainable financial losses

Why the Losses?

  • Forex volatility: Gold and currency markets shifted against Ghana’s favor, shrinking the dollar received per gold ounce
  • Opaque process: No parliamentary oversight, unclear broker fees, unknown volume exchanges—limits accountability
  • Hedging risk: Some experts argue the losses were foreseeable, given unhedged exposure to global market fluctuations

Broader Implications

  • Short-term relief, long-term pain: The scheme may have temporarily eased fuel prices and supported cedi stability, but the cost outweighed the benefits
  • Governance concerns: Critics see it as opaque economic engineering—lacking oversight and transparency in public accountability.
  • Policy lessons: Ghana’s case shows that commodity swaps can help stabilize markets but must be backed by risk control, robust oversight, and institutional support.

What Comes Next?

  • Strategic pivot: The Bank now plans a more formal gold-trading framework via GoldBOD, aiming for transparent, centralized control
  • IMF engagement: Ghana’s Gold-for-Oil losses were factored into IMF reviews, influencing the release of fresh financing and reforms
  • Call for structural reform: Experts urge better risk frameworks, legislative oversight, and clear trade terms if commodity-for-commodity deals are to be viable.

The Gold‑for‑Oil initiative was ambitious—a clever workaround for dollar shortages. But without safeguards, it turned into a costly experiment. The GH¢2 billion loss offers a sharp lesson: innovation in financial policy must go hand-in-hand with transparency, accountability, and rigorous risk management.