Sold to citizens as a revolutionary solution to stabilize the cedi and lower fuel prices, Ghana’s Gold-for-Oil (G4O) program accomplished neither objective and served primarily to inflate the market share of state-owned Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company (BOST) by over 500%.
In his latest analysis, Bright Simons., the Honorary Vice President of IMANI Africa revealed that six months after the programme’s termination in March 2025, “life goes on as normal. No shortage at the pumps, no crazy hikes in the dollar.”
Simons’ presentations demonstrate that “G4O’s only impact was to increase BOST’s market share by over 500% (even so, private BDCs still supplied 70% of fuel at the peak of G4O).
No other benefit is visible. Currency stability? Zilch. Pump prices? Nada,” he remarked.
In late 2022, the government announced that Ghana would use its gold resources to cover refined fuel imports. Internationally, this was seen as part of the de-dollarisation trend. Locally, it was trumpeted as a big innovation: the pressure on the currency would reduce because Ghana would use gold, instead of dollars, to import fuel.
But the reality proved far less innovative. It became clear over time that Ghana was simply selling the gold for dollars and using that to cover imports—there was nothing innovative whatsoever about the model. What changed was how those dollars got distributed.
During the G4O era, the Bank of Ghana (BoG) supplied approximately $1.63 billion to BOST’s suppliers outside the auction system in a highly opaque arrangement that has never been transparently explained. In effect, a simple process of selling dollars to fuel importers became a highly opaque operation in which BoG liquidated gold for dollars through unknown brokers and then funnelled the cash to mostly obscure fuel traders to supply BOST under shady terms.
Some of the companies that received contracts to supply fuel had zero track record in the industry. Indeed, one is now subject to criminal proceedings in London for its role in the G4O saga.
The financial damage was substantial. The BoG reported foreign exchange losses exceeding GH¢2.1 billion. Added to that were fees for mysterious middlemen and premiums for obscure traders whose identities remain unknown.
IMANI Africa and partner organizations this week announced findings of suspected graft and crooked dealings, petitioning authorities to order a full, transparent, end-to-end forensic audit into G4O with civil society organizations observing.
Perhaps most damning is the counterfactual analysis. By eliminating the forex losses and brokerage fees and margins, consumers could have benefitted. IMANI’s analysis showed that without G4O, prices would have been marginally lower.
The irony cuts deep: Even at G4O’s peak, private Bulk Distribution Companies (BDCs) still supplied more than 70% of Ghana’s fuel needs. Consumers saw no respite at the pumps. Prices didn’t come down. The cedi didn’t hold firm. Life at filling stations continued as usual.
Ghana operates an “almost liberalized” fuel market where licensed private companies called BDCs import fuel under regulatory oversight from the National Petroleum Authority (NPA). Because the forex market is only partly liberalized, the central bank regularly auctions dollars to BDCs to supplement what commercial banks provide for fuel imports.
The government could have simply increased dollar supply to BDCs through open auctions if forex availability was the concern. Instead, it chose to support BOST’s market expansion through opaque arrangements that benefited unknown middlemen while costing the central bank billions in forex losses.
One possible policy justification might have been that BOST would increase competitive pressure in the industry, strategically lowering prices and smoothing supply disruptions. The data shows this didn’t happen.
Since the programme’s termination six months ago and reversion to standard dollar auctions, Ghana’s fuel market has functioned normally. There have been no shortages at pumps, no dramatic dollar spikes—just business as usual, but without the forex losses and questionable intermediaries.
The Gold-for-Oil saga represents a cautionary tale about policy innovation versus execution. What sounded bold and transformative in press releases turned out to be an expensive exercise in market distortion that primarily benefited BOST’s balance sheet and a handful of mysterious traders while delivering nothing to ordinary Ghanaians at the pumps.
By Nelson Ayivor