Ghana’s latest Bank of Ghana accounts have triggered a familiar but important question: when it comes to public finance, what counts as the “real” number?
At the centre of the dispute is the central bank’s reported GH¢15.6 billion loss for 2025. The figure is audited, published and defended by the Majority in Parliament as accurate and compliant with accounting standards. Yet the Minority insists the true loss is far higher, closer to GH¢34.9 billion, and potentially GH¢44 billion when other adjustments are considered.
Both sides are working from the same set of accounts. What differs is interpretation.
The Minority’s argument hinges on the treatment of what accountants call “other comprehensive income”, essentially unrealised gains or losses that do not pass through the main profit and loss statement. By adding this to the headline loss figure, they argue that the official number understates the Bank’s actual financial position.
The Majority disagrees. Their position is straightforward: profit or loss is not the same as other comprehensive income, and combining the two to produce a new “loss” figure is not recognised under any standard accounting framework.
At one level, this is a technical debate. But at another, it speaks to a deeper issue, how complex financial data is communicated to the public, and how easily it can be reframed to support competing narratives.
There is no doubt the Bank of Ghana is under strain. Four consecutive years of losses, a sharply deteriorating equity position and rising costs linked to monetary policy operations all point to a balance sheet under pressure. These are not trivial concerns.
Yet context matters.
The central bank’s primary job is not to make profits. It is to maintain price stability and support economic confidence. By that measure, there has been clear progress.
Inflation has fallen sharply, the cedi has steadied and borrowing conditions are gradually easing. These are tangible outcomes that affect everyday life.
But those gains have come at a cost.
The aggressive measures required to tame inflation, particularly liquidity tightening, have effectively shifted financial pressure onto the Bank itself. In simple terms, the institution has absorbed the shock so the broader economy can stabilise.
This is not unique to Ghana. It is a pattern seen in many economies where central banks intervene forcefully during periods of crisis.
The real question, therefore, is not just whether the loss is GH¢15.6 billion or GH¢34.9 billion. It is whether the country understands what those numbers represent.
Are they evidence of mismanagement, as some suggest? Or are they the unavoidable side effects of difficult but necessary policy decisions?
The answer likely sits somewhere in between.
What is clear is that transparency is not the issue here. The data is available. The accounts are audited. The disagreement lies in how the figures are interpreted and communicated.
That places a responsibility on both sides of the political divide. Simplifying complex financial statements into headline numbers may win arguments, but it risks obscuring the underlying reality.
For the public, the takeaway should be cautious clarity: the Bank of Ghana is financially stretched, but that strain reflects the cost of restoring stability after a period of economic turbulence.
As inflation falls and conditions improve, attention must now turn to rebuilding the Bank’s balance sheet without undoing those gains. That will require disciplined fiscal policy, careful monetary management and, possibly, deliberate recapitalisation.
In the end, the numbers do matter. But understanding what they mean matters even more.
Feature by Edward Acquah || Metro Digital
edwardacquah9191@gmail.com
