There is no internationally recognized or standardized law that mandates a central bank must limit its gold holdings to a specific percentage.
Governor Johnson Pandit Asiama’s claim that international best practice requires a “threshold” of 20–25% is a policy preference, not a legal requirement. In fact, global data from the IMF and World Gold Council shows that central bank gold reserves vary wildly based on a nation’s specific economic strategy.
Global Comparison: The 25% “Threshold” Myth
Central banks across the globe maintain gold at vastly different levels. There is no “one-size-fits-all” rule.
United States ~75%
High gold concentration as a hedge against the Dollar.
Germany ~70%
Legacy of the gold standard and long-term stability.
Poland ~28%
Actively increasing gold to reach a 30% target.
Russia ~30% De-dollarization strategy to avoid sanctions.
China ~6%
Low percentage, but holds massive physical volume.
Ghana (Pre-Oct 2025) ~40%
Result of the “Gold for Reserves” accumulation success.
As shown above, many of the world’s strongest economies hold far more than the 25% “limit” cited by the Governor. His argument that 40% was “too concentrated” is a subjective management decision, not a response to a global mandate.
IMF and World Gold Council Perspectives
The IMF does not set “caps” on gold. Instead, it provides guidelines on liquidity management.
● Liquidity vs. Stability: The IMF notes that while gold is a great “store of value” (stability), it is less “liquid” than US Dollars or Euros.
● The “Liquid” Defense: Governor Asiama used this IMF logic to justify the sale, arguing that Ghana needed “liquid” cash (USD) to support the Cedi and pay for imports, rather than “illiquid” gold.
● The Rebuttal: Critics argue that if the goal was liquidity, the Bank could have used Gold Swaps (using gold as collateral for a loan) rather than an outright sale, which would have allowed Ghana to keep the gold and benefit from the price surge to $5,200
The Legal Violation: Act 1140
Regardless of whether 25% is a “good” target, the core issue remains the legality of the trade.
● Act 1140 (Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025) was already law at the time of the October sale.
● Section 3(d) explicitly requires Parliamentary approval for the sale of gold reserves.
● By making the sale without this approval, the Governor bypassed the very check-and-balance designed to prevent a single individual from making a multi-billion dollar “timing error.”
Summary
The Governor’s reference to a 20-25% threshold appears to be a convenient justification for a sale that lacked the required legislative oversight. While reserve rebalancing is a legitimate central bank activity, the timing (selling right before a historic rally) and the secrecy (bypassing Parliament) are what distinguish this from standard international practice.
The Auditor-General’s report, due by the end of March 2026, is expected to confirm if the “rebalancing” was a genuine policy shift or a breach of the Gold Board Act.
Yk Ansah-Yeboah CED_CPAG
10th March 2026
