Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has pushed back against comments by Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, insisting that criticism of the institution should not be interpreted as a personal attack.
Afenyo-Markin said neither he nor former Deputy Finance Minister Abena Osei-Asare has any personal animosity towards Gyamfi, despite their criticism of GoldBod and concerns over its operations.
Speaking on Metro TV on August 10, 2026, the Minority Leader said the opposition’s position was motivated by a desire to see GoldBod succeed rather than hostility towards its chief executive.
“NPP, nobody hates you. Abena Osei-Asare doesn’t hate you. I don’t hate you. We want the best for you,” he said.
He urged Gyamfi to distinguish between criticism of his work as head of GoldBod and attacks on his personal character, stressing that the Minority’s concerns are centred on the operations of the state institution.
The exchange comes as GoldBod faces increased public scrutiny following claims circulating on social media involving a man identified as Dominic Bonsu and allegations surrounding Gyamfi’s security detail.
Among the claims is an allegation that GH¢200 million belonging to GoldBod was taken by the businessman. Gyamfi has strongly rejected the allegations, describing them as false and part of what he considers a coordinated disinformation campaign against him.
During an X Spaces discussion on Sunday, August 9, Gyamfi denied allegations that members of his security team were involved in gold trading or had taken money belonging to GoldBod.
“None of my bodyguards is involved in gold trading, and none of my bodyguards has stolen or taken Gold Board money,” he said.
He also rejected claims that Bonsu had previously worked as his bodyguard.
GoldBod has separately denied both the allegation of a GH¢200 million loss and the claim that Bonsu was a former member of Gyamfi’s security detail.
The dispute has brought renewed attention to the scrutiny surrounding GoldBod, with the Minority maintaining that its criticism is focused on the institution’s operations rather than any personal hostility towards its CEO.
