Political commentator Ellen Ama Daaku has questioned the reaction of members of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to criticism directed at Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi amid the ongoing controversy over the institution’s financial performance.
Speaking on Angel FM’s morning show on Wednesday, August 19, 2026, Daaku argued that public officials must be prepared to face scrutiny when questions are raised about their decisions and performance, and Sammy Gyamfi is no exception.
“Even President Mahama is cool being criticised, so why is the NDC worried about us criticising Sammy Gyamfi if something has gone wrong? We all know Sammy Gyamfi is disrespectful, but he should know that he is now in public office not in opposition ”
Her comments come amid a heated public debate over claims by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin that GoldBod incurred losses of about GH¢22 billion. Afenyo-Markin has demanded answers from the state-owned institution and insisted that the Minority will continue scrutinising its financial operations.
Sammy Gyamfi has strongly rejected the allegation, describing the claim as false and pointing to GoldBod’s audited 2025 financial statements. According to Gyamfi, the institution recorded an operational surplus of GH¢907 million and an overall surplus of GH¢5.4 billion in 2025.
The disagreement has consequently developed into a broader political and economic debate over how GoldBod’s financial performance should be interpreted.
For Daaku, however, the manner in which the disagreement is being handled is just as important as the figures themselves.
She questioned why Sammy Gyamfi would resort to insults in responding to Afenyo-Markin’s questions about GoldBod’s alleged losses through his Facebook post, arguing that public officials should respond to criticism with facts and explanations rather than personal attacks.
GoldBod Is Under Attack: They Need Prayers
Her position reflects a broader principle in democratic governance: public institutions must be open to scrutiny, especially when public resources are involved.
Afenyo-Markin has maintained that the Minority’s concerns are about institutional performance and policy rather than a personal attack on GoldBod’s CEO. He has argued that the central issue is whether GoldBod’s operations have resulted in financial losses to the state.
At the same time, the figures remain contested. While the Minority has cited a GH¢22 billion loss, GoldBod’s management has pointed to its audited financial statements showing surpluses. Other analysts have also argued that some losses associated with the gold purchasing programme should be understood within the broader policy objective of gaining control of Ghana’s gold market.
This makes the demand for clear information even more important. Rather than allowing the GoldBod debate to deteriorate into political insults, the public deserves a transparent explanation of the figures, the accounting treatment, the policy objectives and the actual financial implications for the state.
As Daaku’s comments suggest, criticism of a public official should not automatically be interpreted as an attack on an entire political party.
If something has gone wrong, citizens have every right to ask questions. If nothing has gone wrong, the strongest response is not an insult—it is the evidence. And in a democracy, that evidence should be available for everyone to examine.