A private legal practitioner has asked the High Court to compel the Gold Board of Directors (GOLDBOD) to release comprehensive details about its gold purchasing operations, exports, and financial transactions since establishment. Eric Dawda filed the mandamus application Monday after the state gold buying agency allegedly ignored his Right to Information (RTI) request for more than six weeks.
Dawda submitted his initial information request to GOLDBOD on November 24, 2025, seeking details about small scale miners supplying gold to the agency, operational policies, export records, and financial flows. The RTI Act requires public institutions to respond within 14 days unless the request involves exempt information. GOLDBOD acknowledged receipt but provided no substantive response, according to documents filed with the court.
After the statutory response period expired, Dawda petitioned the RTI Commission on December 8, arguing GOLDBOD’s silence constituted a deemed refusal under the Act. He accused the agency of breaching Section 23(1) of the RTI Act and Article 21(1)(f) of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens’ right to information held by public bodies. The commission has not ruled on that petition, prompting Dawda to escalate the matter to the High Court.
The mandamus application asks the court to order GOLDBOD to provide a complete list of all small scale miners and licensed mining companies from whom it has purchased gold. The requested information includes miners’ license numbers, transaction dates, volumes purchased, and the regions where they operate. Dawda argues this data is necessary to verify that only legal operators trade with the state agency.
Additional information sought includes policy and operational documents governing GOLDBOD’s gold buying and selling activities, particulars of all gold exports carried out since inception, and comprehensive records of the institution’s financial inflows and outflows. Dawda also requested details about internal control mechanisms, procurement plans, and guidelines outlining how GOLDBOD assays, values, and exports gold purchased from small scale miners.
In his RTI petition to the commission, Dawda stated the information was essential because issues touch on accountability in gold purchasing, verification of licensed miners, and transparency in export data. He emphasized that gold represents a major contributor to Ghana’s economy and understanding who supplies it and under what policies promotes oversight, combats corruption, and ensures the sector operates in the state’s best interest.
GOLDBOD was established in 2025 as part of government efforts to formalize domestic gold purchasing and boost state control over the small scale mining value chain. The agency aims to centralize gold purchases from artisanal and small scale miners, reduce smuggling, and increase government revenues from the gold sector. CEO Sammy Gyamfi, a former National Democratic Congress (NDC) national communications officer, took office following the party’s December 2024 election victory.
The small scale mining sector has long been associated with environmental destruction, revenue leakages, and illegal operations commonly known as galamsey. Creating a centralized state buying agency was intended to improve oversight and ensure proper taxation of gold sales. However, critics have questioned whether GOLDBOD can effectively regulate a sector characterized by widespread informality and weak enforcement.
Ghana’s RTI Act, passed in 2019 after two decades of legislative delays, empowers citizens to request information from public institutions. The law presumes information should be disclosed unless it falls within specific exemptions covering national security, commercial confidentiality, or personal privacy. Public bodies that fail to respond within mandated timeframes face administrative sanctions and potential court orders compelling disclosure.
The RTI Commission, established to oversee implementation of the Act, has received hundreds of complaints from applicants whose requests were denied or ignored by public institutions. However, the commission itself has faced criticism for slow processing of cases and limited enforcement capacity. Some applicants have bypassed the commission entirely, filing directly in court when public bodies refuse cooperation.
Dawda warned in his November letter to GOLDBOD that he would use all legitimate means to obtain the information if the agency failed to comply voluntarily. His decision to pursue court action follows through on that warning. The mandamus application represents one of the first major legal challenges to GOLDBOD since its establishment, potentially setting precedent for transparency requirements in the gold buying sector.
Legal experts note that mandamus applications succeed when applicants demonstrate a clear legal right to the information sought and show the public body has a corresponding duty to provide it. Courts generally defer to RTI Commission decisions but can order disclosure independently when the commission fails to act or when urgent circumstances warrant judicial intervention. Dawda’s case argues both grounds apply.
GOLDBOD has not publicly commented on the RTI request, the commission petition, or the court application. The agency’s silence contrasts with public statements emphasizing its commitment to transparency and proper governance in gold purchasing. Officials have not explained whether legal, operational, or policy considerations prevent disclosure of the requested information.
Some mining sector observers suggest GOLDBOD may resist disclosure to protect commercial relationships with small scale miners who fear scrutiny from tax authorities or regulatory agencies. Others speculate the agency lacks comprehensive records because its operations remain in early developmental stages. A third view holds that transparency could expose weaknesses in verification systems for ensuring purchased gold comes from legitimate licensed sources.
The High Court has not yet scheduled a hearing date for the mandamus application. Court procedures typically allow respondents time to file opposing affidavits before hearings commence. GOLDBOD would need to demonstrate either that the requested information falls within statutory exemptions or that legitimate grounds exist for withholding disclosure. Generic assertions of administrative convenience or commercial sensitivity rarely satisfy courts in RTI cases.
If the court grants the mandamus order, GOLDBOD would face contempt proceedings for non compliance. Such orders can include specific timelines for disclosure and requirements that the agency cover applicant legal costs. Successful mandamus applications also strengthen subsequent RTI cases by establishing precedent that particular categories of information must be disclosed absent compelling justifications.
The case reflects broader tensions between Ghana’s transparency laws and the practical challenges of implementing them. Many public institutions lack proper records management systems, making information retrieval difficult even when officials harbor no intent to conceal data. Others maintain information in formats unsuitable for public release without extensive processing. The RTI Act requires institutions to proactively organize information for disclosure, but compliance remains uneven.
Dawda’s legal action comes as civil society organizations intensify pressure on GOLDBOD to demonstrate its effectiveness in formalizing small scale gold purchases. Questions persist about the agency’s purchasing volumes, prices paid to miners, and ultimate destination of purchased gold. Without comprehensive public reporting, stakeholders cannot assess whether GOLDBOD achieves its stated objectives of reducing smuggling and increasing state revenues.
Whether the court orders disclosure or GOLDBOD voluntarily releases the information, the case highlights persistent implementation challenges for Ghana’s RTI regime. Six years after the Act’s passage, many public officials still treat information requests as nuisances rather than legal obligations. Successful court challenges like Dawda’s application may prove necessary to shift institutional culture toward presumptive disclosure.
