The parliamentary majority has pushed again towards the minority argument that the 14.61 billion francs paid by the Financial institution of Ghana (BoG) to industrial banks in 2025 amounted to a switch of public property to non-public banks.
The minority argued that banks had made report earnings by holding Ghanaian banknotes as an alternative of lending to the personal sector.
The report mentioned the event had weakened enterprise confidence, weakened financial exercise and worsened unemployment.
However Atta Issa, a member of Sanyarig and a member of the parliamentary finance committee, mentioned that interpretation “simplifies a fancy financial coverage course of and misrepresents each the aim and influence of those funds.”
The dialogue follows scrutiny of the Financial institution of Ghana’s audited accounts. Minorities are related to coverage modifications, liquidity releases, open market operations, and financial institution earnings.
However Issa mentioned the hyperlink didn’t seem within the audited statements.
“First, there isn’t any proof within the audited monetary reviews to assist the alleged causal relationship,” he mentioned.
He argued that observe 35 reported the stock of sterile devices, whereas observe 10 reported curiosity prices. He mentioned not one of the will increase had been tied to a single coverage change or reserve requirement adjustment.
“The reasons offered are imposed and never derived from audited data,” he mentioned.
He additionally declined to explain the funds as a “switch of wealth.”
“Curiosity paid on central financial institution merchandise just isn’t a switch. It’s the mechanism by which financial coverage is operated,” he mentioned.
He mentioned open market operations are used to “soak up extra liquidity,” “management inflation,” and “repair rates of interest.”
He mentioned banks obtain curiosity as a result of they supply liquidity to the central financial institution beneath these devices.
“That is how fashionable financial techniques work,” he added.
As for the declare that banks take pleasure in “risk-free earnings,” Issa mentioned the argument is “deceptive.”
“Banks function inside a regulated system. Central banks’ participation in monetary merchandise displays the prevailing coverage state of affairs,” he mentioned.
He identified that larger rates of interest may result in larger returns on central banks and authorities monetary merchandise, which may additionally enhance lending charges and weaken credit score demand.
“It is a identified characteristic of tight financial coverage,” he mentioned.
Issa additionally dismissed recommendations that the decline in personal sector credit score is solely brought on by central financial institution operations.
“The slowdown in credit score development just isn’t solely attributable to central financial institution operations,” he mentioned, however as an alternative cited “excessive rates of interest,” “borrower threat,” “macroeconomic uncertainty,” and “stability sheet changes inside banks.”
He argued that broader financial trade-offs can’t be ignored.
“With out liquidity administration, inflation will stay excessive, buying energy will decline and financial instability will worsen,” he mentioned.
“Excessive inflation imposes prices on family budgets far better than the price of sterilization. Stabilization just isn’t an choice. It’s needed.”
He mentioned there was “no proof” within the audited statements of “coverage distortion for personal acquire”, “inappropriate useful resource allocation” and “lack of transparency”.
He mentioned: “GHF 14.61 billion displays the price of stabilizing liquidity in a excessive inflation atmosphere. It is a perform of the coverage price and the general system state of affairs. This isn’t proof of mismanagement. It’s the price of restoring stability.”
“And with out stability, there isn’t any basis for development, jobs and sustainable financing.”
