Godfred Bokpin, an economist and Professor of Finance at the University of Ghana, has described Ghana’s Gold for Oil policy as a reflection of deeper weaknesses in resource and foreign exchange management rather than a sustainable solution to fuel supply constraints.
Speaking during an interview on the WTV Morning Show, Sore Na Hyeren, on January 13, 2026, Prof. Bokpin responded to comments by the Governor of the Bank of Ghana suggesting that the policy had achieved its objective of reducing fuel shortages and was therefore no longer necessary. While acknowledging the intention behind the initiative, the respected academic argued that the policy itself was built on weak economic foundations.
According to Prof. Bokpin, the concerns that led to the introduction of the Gold for Oil policy were legitimate. Ghana was struggling with foreign exchange shortages, particularly the availability of dollars needed to import petroleum products. However, he stressed that these challenges could have been resolved through more efficient management of existing national resources rather than resorting to what he described as an outdated economic approach.
He explained that the gold used under the policy belongs to the state and not to private individuals. As such, the state already has full authority over gold production through licensing, regulation, and export controls. If gold production, processing, and exports had been properly streamlined and managed, he noted, the country would naturally have generated sufficient foreign exchange inflows to finance fuel imports.
“The fundamental issue was not the absence of gold but the absence of effective foreign exchange management,” Prof. Bokpin implied, adding that poor handling of forex contributed significantly to the depreciation of the cedi and the subsequent increase in fuel prices.
Describing the Gold for Oil initiative as a return to a nineteenth century barter system, Prof. Bokpin questioned the logic of exchanging gold directly for oil when gold already has a well established global market price. He argued that Ghana could have sold its gold transparently on the international market, earned foreign exchange, and used those proceeds to import fuel without introducing a parallel system.
Early evidence from the implementation of the policy, he noted, further weakened its justification. Contrary to its design, the arrangement did not function as a true barter system. Ghana still required foreign exchange to complete oil purchases, undermining the core premise of the initiative and exposing its structural weaknesses.
Prof. Bokpin also clarified that the discontinuation of the Gold for Oil policy was not solely a decision by the current administration. He pointed out that the International Monetary Fund had recommended an exit from the policy as far back as 2024. According to him, there was a clear understanding between Ghanaian authorities and the IMF that the policy was temporary and would eventually be phased out.
He added that discussions involving major political stakeholders and international partners had already acknowledged that the policy was unsustainable in the long term. A roadmap for its discontinuation had been agreed upon well before its eventual cancellation.
In his assessment, Prof. Bokpin emphasized that sustainable economic solutions must be grounded in sound policy design, strong institutions, and effective resource management rather than short term interventions that mask deeper structural problems.
As Ghana continues to navigate fiscal and currency pressures, Prof. Bokpin’s analysis points to the need for reforms that prioritize transparency, efficiency, and long term stability over quick fixes.
Investigative Journalist & News Editor:
Contact: Editor@wesleyannews.com
Source: Wesleyannews.com
Do you have a story to share? Send it to our editorial team at editor@wesleyannews.com