GoldBod In Big Trouble As Juaben MP Hon. Francis Owusu-Akyaw Demands Answers Over GoldBod’s GHS27.5m Geological Deal
The Member of Parliament for Juaben Constituency, Hon. Francis Owusu-Akyaw, has thrown GoldBod into the spotlight, demanding urgent answers over a GHS27.5 million geological investigation deal and the reported release of 20 mineralised areas to the state agency.
The controversy follows a public announcement by the GoldBod CEO that the agency had signed an agreement with the Ghana Geological Survey Authority (GGSA) to conduct geological investigations in Funsi, Atuna and Bensere East over a four-month period.
But according to the MP, the announcement raises serious legal and governance concerns under the Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140) and the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).
“GoldBod Was Created to Trade Gold, Not Hold Mineral Areas”
In a strongly worded public statement, Hon. Owusu-Akyaw argued that GoldBod was set up by Parliament to buy, sell, assay, refine and export gold not to function as a mining company or concession-holding body.He says the agency may have gone beyond its legal mandate.
Big Question: Where Is the Mines Minister?
One of the MP’s biggest concerns is whether the Ministry responsible for Mines was involved in the agreement at all.
He points to Section 3(1)(e) of Act 1140, which allows GoldBod to engage in geological investigations only in collaboration with the Mines Ministry.
However, he says the CEO’s public statement mentions only GoldBod and GGSA, with no visible role for the Minister or the Ministry.
That, he argues, is a red flag. “Model Mines” Not in the Law?
Another issue is GoldBod’s stated reason for the project.
According to Hon. Owusu-Akyaw, the law only permits GoldBod to undertake geological investigations to support small-scale miners.
But the CEO reportedly said the project is intended to generate data for the establishment of “model mines” in Ghana.
The MP insists that “model mines” do not appear anywhere in Act 1140, and is asking a direct question:
What legal authority allows GoldBod to spend GHS27.5 million on a programme Parliament never explicitly approved?
20 Mineral Areas: By What Authority?
Perhaps the most explosive part of the MP’s statement is his challenge over the 20 mineralised areas reportedly released to GoldBod by the Minerals Commission.
He argues that under Act 703, only the Minister responsible for Mines has the legal power to grant rights over mineral areas not the Minerals Commission acting alone.
He also says GoldBod’s own founding law does not authorise it to hold mineral concessions or blocked-out areas.
That raises a major legal question:
Did GoldBod lawfully receive those 20 mineral areas or is the arrangement legally flawed?
MP Demands Full Disclosure.
Hon. Francis Owusu-Akyaw is now calling on the GoldBod CEO and the Minister for Mines to publicly explain:
Whether the Ministry for Mines approved or collaborated on the GGSA deal;
The legal basis for releasing the 20 mineral areas to GoldBod;
Whether GoldBod holds valid mineral rights over those areas; and
Where exactly the GHS27.5 million is coming from.
“Ghanaians Deserve Answers”.
The Juaben MP says he is not accusing anyone of bad faith, but insists that the issues raised are too serious to be ignore.
With millions of cedis involved, a new model mines programme being publicly announced, and 20 mineral areas now under scrutiny, the matter is likely to trigger wider public and parliamentary attention.
For Hon. Owusu-Akyaw, the core issue is simple:Ghana’s mineral resources must be managed lawfully, transparently and in the national interest.
Full Statements below
𝗛𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝘀 𝗢𝘄𝘂𝘀𝘂-𝗔𝗸𝘆𝗮𝘄[ 𝗠𝗣 𝗝𝗨𝗔𝗕𝗘𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗨𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗬] 𝗪𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀
GOLDBOD UNDER SCRUTINY:
GHS27.5 MILLION, 20 MINERAL AREAS AND THE QUESTIONS THAT DEMAND ANSWERS
Dear Fellow Ghanaians,
1. The Chief Executive Officer of GoldBod recently posted on his personal social media page that GoldBod has signed an agreement with the Ghana Geological Survey Authority (GGSA) to conduct geological investigations in Funsi, Atuna and Bensere East at a cost of GHS27.5 million over four months. He also disclosed that the three areas are part of 20 mineralised areas released to GoldBod by the Minerals Commission of Ghana.
2. I have read this announcement carefully and compared it against the Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140) and the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), the two principal laws that govern GoldBod and the management of mineral resources in Ghana.
3. I want to share what I found. I do this with no interest in scoring political points. Ghana’s mineral resources belong to all of us and how they are managed must always be a matter of public scrutiny. That is what I owe you as your Member of Parliament.
WHAT GOLDBOD WAS CREATED TO DO
4. GoldBod was established by Parliament under Act 1140 to buy, sell, assay, refine and export gold on behalf of Ghana. Its stated purpose is to generate foreign exchange for the country and support the accumulation of gold reserves by the Bank of Ghana. That is the mandate Parliament gave it.
5. GoldBod is a gold trading and marketing body. Parliament did not create it as a mining company, a mineral development authority, or an institution empowered to acquire and manage mineral concessions. That distinction is critical given what has been announced.
QUESTION ONE: WHERE IS THE MINISTER FOR MINES?
6. The only provision in Act 1140 that allows GoldBod to be involved in geological investigations is Section 3(1)(e). That section comes with a condition that Parliament made mandatory. GoldBod must act
“in collaboration with the Ministry responsible for Mines.”
7. That is not a guideline or a best practice. It is the law as Parliament passed it. It is not optional and it does not carry exceptions.
8. The CEO’s announcement names two parties to this agreement: GoldBod and GGSA. The Ministry responsible for Mines does not appear anywhere in the announcement. Not as a party. Not as an approving authority. Not even as an institution that was informed.
9. The question I am putting to GoldBod and to the Minister responsible for Mines is simple and direct.
Was the Ministry responsible for Mines involved in, consulted on, or did it give approval for this GHS27.5 million agreement?
10. If the answer is no, then this agreement raises a serious question of compliance with Section 3(1)(e) of Act 1140 and in this provision, Parliament did not make it optional.
QUESTION TWO: THIS IS FOR MODEL MINES, NOT SMALL SCALE MINERS
11. Section 3(1)(e) of Act 1140 authorises geological investigations for one specific purpose. It is to provide support to small scale miners. Parliament was precise about this. The beneficiary of GoldBod’s geological investigation power is the small scale miner. That is not open to reinterpretation.
12. What the CEO announced is something different. His exact words are that the project is aimed at “generating credible geological data for the establishment of model mines in the country.”
13. Model mines. Not small scale miners.
14. The term model mines does not appear anywhere in Act 1140. It is not defined. It is not listed among GoldBod’s functions. Parliament did not give GoldBod the authority to spend public funds generating geological data for model mines, whatever that term is intended to mean.
15. The CEO’s own words have created a problem that GoldBod needs to address directly. The purpose he publicly stated for this agreement does not match the purpose for which Parliament authorised geological investigations under Act 1140.
On what specific legal provision does GoldBod rely to commit GHS27.5 million to a model mines programme that Parliament never mentioned in Act 1140?
16. Ghana deserves a clear answer to that question.
QUESTION THREE: BY WHAT AUTHORITY DID THE MINERALS COMMISSION RELEASE 20 MINERAL AREAS TO GOLDBOD?
17. This is the question that I found most striking as I read through the CEO’s statement.
18. He revealed that the three areas covered by this agreement are part of 20 mineralised areas released to GoldBod by the Minerals Commission. That is a significant disclosure, and it raises a question of law that cannot be passed over lightly.
19. Under Section 5 of Act 703, the power to grant rights over mineral areas in Ghana belongs exclusively to the Minister for Mines, acting on the recommendation of the Minerals Commission. The Minerals Commission is a recommending and regulatory body. Parliament gave it no independent authority to release, allocate, or vest mineral areas in any institution, including GoldBod.
20. I have also read all 78 sections of Act 1140 carefully. There is no provision in that Act that authorises GoldBod to hold, receive, or exercise rights over mineral concessions or blocked out mineral areas. GoldBod’s mandate is gold trading and marketing. Holding mineral concessions is simply not what it was created to do.
21. Two direct questions arise from this:
What is the legal instrument, whether an Act of Parliament, an Executive Instrument, or a Ministerial order, that authorised the Minerals Commission to release 20 mineral blocked out areas to GoldBod?
Does GoldBod hold a valid mineral right over these areas that was properly granted by the Minister under Act 703?
22. If GoldBod is in possession of 20 blocked out mineral areas without a proper legal foundation, that is not a procedural oversight. It is a matter of constitutional and statutory seriousness that Parliament and the people of Ghana have a right to understand.
WHAT I AM NOT SAYING
23. Let me be honest about what I am not saying.
24. I am not saying GoldBod acted with bad faith. I am not saying geological investigations in Funsi, Atuna and Bensere East are wrong in principle. I am not saying the CEO had improper motives. I am not making accusations.
25. What I am saying is that the CEO’s own public announcement raises four serious legal questions that have no visible answers on its face. GHS27.5 million of public funds has been committed. Twenty mineral areas have been allocated. A national model mines programme has been launched publicly. All of this in the name of an institution whose mandate under Act 1140 is gold trading and marketing, and without any visible involvement of the Minister who under Act 703 is the primary authority over mineral activities in this country.
26. These are not trivial questions. They go to the heart of how Ghana’s mineral resources are governed and who has the authority to make decisions about them. The people of Ghana, and Parliament, are entitled to clear answers.
WHAT I AM FORMALLY CALLING FOR
27. I am calling on the Minister responsible for Mines and the GOLDBOD CEO to address the following:
(a) An answer as to whether there was any collaboration with the Minister responsible for mines for the GGSA agreement, specifically demonstrating compliance with Section 3(1)(e) of Act 1140.
(b) The legal instrument by which the Minerals Commission released 20 mineral areas to GoldBod, and confirmation of whether a valid mineral right under Section 5 of Act 703 was granted by the Minister over those areas.
(c) The source of the GHS27.5 million, including whether it is drawn from GoldBod’s operational funds, the small scale miner earmarked fund under Section 25 of Act 1140, or a borrowing facility requiring prior Ministerial consent under Section 22 of Act 1140.
28. Ghana’s mineral resources are the inheritance of every Ghanaian, the living, those who came before us, and those who will come after. Their management must at all times be lawful, transparent, and fully accountable to the people through Parliament.
29. I ask these questions in that spirit and in that spirit alone.
Francis Owusu-Akyaw
Member of Parliament, Juaben Constituency
References: Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140) and Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703)
Sections cited: Act 1140 Sections 2, 3(1)(e), 5, 14, 22, 25 and Act 703 Sections 5, 9(3), 100
