Misryoum reports concerns after the Bank of Ghana recorded a major 2025 operational loss, drawing criticism over policy choices.
A “new low” is how the Bank of Ghana’s latest financial figures have been framed, after a steep operational loss emerged for 2025.
In Misryoum’s report on the Bank of Ghana’s 2025 Financial Statement, published May 1, 2026, the central bank recorded an operational loss of GHS 15.6 billion.. The figure is described as the second-highest operational loss since the cedi was redenominated in 2008, and it also exceeds what was recorded for 2024.
That comparison is fueling the sharper criticism, because 2024 had been seen by many as an improving period following earlier turbulence that affected central banks worldwide. Misryoum notes that 2025 was characterized as a non-crisis year, which makes the jump in losses stand out more.
The key point here is that central banking losses do not only reflect costs in isolation; they also shape confidence in how policy and risk management are being handled.
Dr.. Gideon Boako, a Member of Parliament for Tano North and a member of the Finance Committee, has publicly criticized the development, calling the large loss a “new low.” In his remarks, he also linked the severity of the 2025 result to how the bank performed during a period not defined by crisis conditions.
Boako, according to Misryoum, previously analyzed the Bank of Ghana’s financial position and argued that an impending loss was likely.. His broader message is that a central bank that was expected to be stabilizing should not have delivered what he described as the largest non-crisis loss in its history.
In the same critique, Boako pointed to earlier signs of recovery referenced in the Bank of Ghana’s own 2024 statements.. He noted that operating losses had narrowed from GH¢13.23 billion to GH¢9.49 billion, and that other comprehensive income had reportedly turned positive, alongside a moderation of FX valuation losses and signs of balance sheet stabilization.
Meanwhile, he said the 2025 outcome suggested those improvements were not sustained under the bank’s subsequent leadership, which he framed as a reversal of progress.
This matters because when a non-crisis period ends with unusually weak outcomes, it raises questions about whether policy decisions and internal priorities are aligned with stabilizing the financial outlook.
Misryoum adds that Boako attributed the scale of the loss to politically motivated policy choices rather than stability-driven factors, leaving the debate focused not just on the numbers, but on what drove them.
At the end of the day, the controversy is likely to put additional pressure on the central bank to explain how a recovery narrative shifted into a major operational deficit within the period it was expected to hold steady.