In the face of growing public debate over illegal mining (“galamsey”) and the role of Ghana’s new statutory body, the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi has forcefully rejected accusations that the institution is promoting or buying gold from illegal miners.
Speaking to the media and on broadcast platforms this week, Gyamfi described the claims as “false and misleading,” and set out legal, operational and technical reasons why GoldBod cannot and does not incentivize galamsey.
The claim, in brief
Critics and some opinion pieces have charged that GoldBod created to centralize purchase, assay and export of artisanal gold is effectively providing a market for illegally mined gold, thus encouraging environmental destruction and unlawful activity.
Those critics point to market access and recent spikes in recorded gold purchases as proof that GoldBod somehow legitimizes or enables galamsey.
Gyamfi’s rebuttal: three pillars of his defense
1. Temporal logic — GoldBod is new; galamsey is decades-old
Gyamfi repeatedly stressed that the galamsey problem long predates GoldBod. He argued it is illogical to pin decades of entrenched illegal mining practices on a statutory body that was established only months earlier. He asked rhetorically how a five-month-old institution could be responsible for an age-old crisis, underscoring that blame should be aimed at the broader governance, enforcement and socio-economic failures that created galamsey over time.
2. Legal mandate and rules of engagement
Under the GoldBod Act, the Board’s mandate is to purchase gold from licensed artisanal and small-scale miners (ASM), provide traceability, and support formalization of the sector — not to buy from unlicensed operators. Gyamfi pointed to specific provisions of the Act that frame GoldBod’s role as a regulated market actor and an instrument of traceability and environmental stewardship, arguing these make it procedurally impossible for GoldBod to lawfully procure unverified galamsey gold.
3. Operational safeguards and traceability
Gyamfi described the practical controls GoldBod uses: assay and grading procedures, documentation requirements, and plans for digital traceability from mine to market. He insisted GoldBod is not using galamsey gold in operations and that purchases are tied to verification processes that exclude unlicensed production. He also noted that GoldBod has engaged with miners’ cooperatives, regulators and security agencies to strengthen compliance checks.
Where the debate escalated: political comments and public reaction
The controversy intensified after remarks made during a presidential media encounter, where comments were interpreted by some as suggesting the state might prefer local capture of gold (even if sourced informally) rather than letting foreigners profit from smuggling. That remark was seized upon by critics who argue that any government demand for locally retained gold risks signaling tolerance of illicit sourcing. Gyamfi and other officials have since moved to clarify that policy objectives (retaining value within the economy) do not equate to condoning illegal extraction, and that enforcement remains a priority.
Evidence and data cited by Gyamfi
Beyond legal and procedural arguments, Gyamfi pointed to early signs of environmental progress and monitoring data, for example, improvements in turbidity metrics on some key rivers to argue that coordinated anti-galamsey work is yielding localized results and that GoldBod’s role is complementary to enforcement and remediation efforts. He used this to bolster the claim that the government’s integrated approach (GoldBod + security + community engagement) is working and not enabling illegal mining.
Independent perspectives and unanswered questions
Many observers welcome GoldBod’s formalization goals, limiting smuggling, improving assay transparency, and capturing foreign exchange but remain skeptical until three conditions are demonstrably met:
- Transparent procurement records: Regular, publicly accessible reports showing buyer identity, mine/source registration and assay results (so civil society can audit whether purchases are from licensed ASM).
- Clear enforcement outcomes: Evidence that security and regulatory agencies are investigating and prosecuting persons and groups who operate outside licensing frameworks, including high-profile cases when warranted.
- Community and livelihoods integration: Measurable support for ASM operators to formalize (e.g., licensing assistance, access to finance and safer, environmentally compliant techniques) so formalization is not simply punitive.
Experts caution that without visible transparency and consistent enforcement, perception — whether or not it matches reality — will shape whether GoldBod becomes trusted or vilified.
How GoldBod can strengthen credibility (practical steps)
Based on the points Gyamfi raised and the gaps critics highlight, the following actions would narrow the credibility gap quickly:
- Publish weekly purchase ledgers showing origin (licensed mine ID), volume, assay grades and buyer/exporter details.
- Open-data audit portal that allows NGOs and journalists to cross-check shipments and assay certificates.
- Joint operations reports with Minerals Commission and Ghana Police explicitly listing anti-galamsey arrests, prosecutions and penalties tied to trade data.
- Independent third-party verification — invite reputable international bodies to spot-check GoldBod procurement chains and attest to compliance.
- Formalization accelerators offering fast-track licensing, technical training, and incentive packages for miners who register and comply.
These steps would make it harder for critics to claim GoldBod is promoting galamsey and would convert Gyamfi’s words into verifiable outcomes.
rhetoric vs. reform – why both matter
Sammy Gyamfi’s public refutation addresses the immediate reputational problem: GoldBod does not, in his account, buy galamsey gold nor does it promote illegal mining.
He anchored his rebuttal in the institution’s legal remit, operational safeguards, and the simple fact of timing, that GoldBod is newly created while galamsey is a long-standing problem.
But the controversy underscores a larger truth: rhetoric alone will not settle public trust. For GoldBod to move from contested to credible, the Board must match Gyamfi’s denials with transparent procurement data, visible enforcement partnerships, and rapid, demonstrable support for ASM formalization.
If it does, the institution can play a central role in reducing smuggling, restoring environmental health, and increasing the value that Ghana retains from its gold and critics will have far less grounds for alarm.
