The integrity of the previous administration’s Gold-for-Oil (G4O) programme has thrust back into the national spotlight as Energy Analyst Kwadwo Poku condemns a recent report by policy think tank IMANI Africa, dismissing its underlying analysis as “frivolous” and lacking credibility.
Speaking on JoyNews’ AM Show today, September 30, Mr Poku, a former NPP flagbearer aspirant, passionately challenged the public discourse surrounding the controversial G4O programme, accusing the nation of becoming susceptible to sensational but unfounded claims.
“We should move away from a country of mediocrity to a country of seriousness,” Mr Poku asserted, lamenting what he sees as a decline in rigorous public analysis.
“Ghana is becoming a country where somebody wakes up in the morning and writes an article that pigs can fly, and journalists will start calling all the experts to ask them whether it’s true that pigs can fly. That is where we’re heading to”.
IMANI’s ‘International Audit’ Lacks Credibility
The core of Mr Poku’s criticism targeted IMANI’s recent statement, which was reportedly based on a confidential forensic risk assessment of the G4O programme by an unnamed multinational organisation.
Mr Poku, a veteran of the energy sector with decades of experience, claimed to have reviewed the very document IMANI referenced and found it severely lacking in authenticity and factual basis.
“IMANI, I know Franklin; I know Kofi. But if you read the press statement they put out, they said that they have reviewed an international audit. I have seen that audit they are referring to — there is no name to it, there is no organisation to it, and if you read it, it’s frivolous,” he added.
Mr Poku then issued a direct challenge to the think tank to name its source, arguing that the anonymity renders the document impossible to verify.
“I want to say on national television today, IMANI should come and tell us who authored the assessment. It will help us interrogate it better because, if you read it, it impugns companies’ integrity; it impugns the integrity of technical technocrats and civil servants.”
‘Potential Losses’ and Integrity of Top Officials
The energy analyst focused particularly on the integrity of the individuals involved in managing the multi-billion-dollar scheme, pointing out a key figure whose reputation is allegedly jeopardized by the undocumented report.
“Do you know who was the head of Gold for Oil? Today, the person who is the First Deputy Governor of the BoG was head of Gold for Oil at the Bank of Ghana,” Mr Poku stated, cautioning against the casual defamation of senior public servants based on anonymous data.
He also flatly rejected the financial loss figures cited in the anonymous document, arguing they misunderstand basic industry terminology.
The report, according to IMANI, suggested potential losses amounting to GH¢7.2 billion ($576 million, based on current approximate exchange rates).
Mr Poku argued: “You can’t put this frivolous document in the public domain and talk about potential losses. This 7.2 billion that they talk about—it’s not a loss. They talk about potential—what is potential loss? How does one sit and put something in the public domain and every journalist is feeding on it?”
Tax Exemptions: Industry Standard, Not G4O Malpractice
Mr Poku devoted significant detail to debunking the report’s claims regarding tax exemptions, which it reportedly cited as a major source of loss or malpractice within the G4O framework.
He explained that these exemptions are a standard, well-documented practice within the Ghanaian petroleum industry, independent of the Gold-for-Oil policy.
“When somebody issues a document and says that there are 7.5 legal exemptions—which is what happens in the industry — what they talk about, which is the exemptions in the importation of fuel, it was happening before Gold for Oil, was happening during Gold for Oil, and is happening today,” Mr Poku elaborated.
He stressed that the taxes are not waived entirely but are handled through a recovery mechanism involving the government and the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) and Bulk Distribution Companies (BDCs).
“Petroleum products are exempted and the taxes are recovered from you and me at the pump. If you go to GRA today, GRA is in court with a lot of BDCs and OMCs to recover taxes. The NPA boss is with OMC to recover margins. It’s the practice in the industry.”
Concluding his strong denial, Mr Poku, who identifies as a member of a civil society, reiterated his extensive experience in the field to lend weight to his technical refutation:
“I have worked in this industry for 24 years of practical experience working. If there are things that are wrong, I am a member of a civil society; we will point it out. What I am saying is that the document IMANI is referring to—the reason why I am discrediting it is that there is no author, there is no institution to it. All the premises upon which it makes the conclusion is false, 100 percent false.”
The analyst’s comments intensify the debate over the effectiveness and transparency of the G4O scheme, demanding a higher standard of evidence in policy analysis and public discourse.
READ ALSO: Bright Simons punches holes in Gold-for-Oil (G4O) scheme — A simple must-read explanation
