A Ghanaian citizen, Dr. Yaw Twerefour, has initiated legal action at the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of allocating and disbursing funds from the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) to Members of Parliament (MPs). The lawsuit, filed against key government officials including the Attorney-General and Ministers for Finance and Local Government, seeks to halt the practice, which the plaintiff argues diverts funds intended for local governance.
Background of the District Assemblies Common Fund
The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) was established under Article 252 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. Its primary purpose is to provide financial resources for the effective functioning and development of Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs) across the country. The fund is a critical component of Ghana’s decentralisation policy, aimed at empowering local government structures.
The Core of the Legal Challenge
At the centre of the legal challenge is the long-standing practice of earmarking portions of the DACF for MPs. These allocations have historically been channelled through various programmes, referred to as the “MPs Common Fund,” “Constituency Labour Projects,” and “Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation.” Dr. Twerefour contends that these allocations directly contravene Article 252 of the Constitution.
The plaintiff’s writ argues that the DACF is constitutionally designated solely for the benefit and utilisation of the MMDAs. Therefore, any distribution or control of these funds by MPs, or any entity outside the established framework of the District Assemblies, is unconstitutional.
Challenging Allocation Formulas and Disbursement Practices
Dr. Twerefour is seeking a Supreme Court declaration that any formula approved for DACF distribution that reserves a portion for MPs is invalid. Furthermore, the suit challenges the reported practice of disbursing DACF monies directly into the personal bank accounts of MPs.
According to the plaintiff, such direct payments violate Articles 187 and 252 of the Constitution. He argues that these practices undermine essential principles of transparency, accountability, and sound public financial management. Funds transferred to personal accounts become significantly harder to monitor, audit, and recover, potentially hindering the Auditor-General’s constitutional mandate and increasing the risk of financial loss to the state.
Reliefs Sought by the Plaintiff
The legal action seeks several key remedies from the Supreme Court. Dr. Twerefour requests a perpetual injunction to prohibit any future allocation or disbursement of DACF monies to MPs outside the designated District Assembly framework.
He also wants an order mandating that all future DACF disbursements be made exclusively into the official public accounts of the respective District Assemblies, in compliance with constitutional provisions and the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921). Additionally, the plaintiff is asking the court to compel the Auditor-General to conduct a thorough audit of all past DACF monies disbursed to MPs, reporting on their utilisation and accountability.
Finally, the suit calls for the recovery of any DACF monies found to have been unlawfully disbursed to MPs through personal or other unauthorized accounts.
Motion for Interlocutory Injunction
In parallel with the main lawsuit, Dr. Twerefour has filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction. This urgent application seeks to immediately halt any further disbursement of DACF funds to MPs while the Supreme Court deliberates on the substantive case. The application specifically targets the Administrator of the DACF and the Minister for Finance, aiming to prevent them from approving or effecting payments to MPs under existing arrangements.
The affidavit supporting the injunction motion cites official DACF formula documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, which allegedly show portions of the fund allocated to MPs. It also references a special audit report commissioned by the Ministry of Finance, which purportedly confirms direct payments of DACF monies into MPs’ personal accounts, with significant sums disbursed without adequate documentation or accountability.
Dr. Twerefour argues that the alleged constitutional breaches are ongoing and that immediate court intervention is necessary to prevent the irretrievable loss of public funds. He asserts that monetary damages would be insufficient, as public funds, once spent, cannot easily be restored, and lost audit trails are difficult to reconstruct. Granting the injunction, he contends, would preserve the constitutional status quo and safeguard public resources.
Broader Implications for Governance
This landmark case is poised to scrutinise the constitutional boundaries of parliamentary involvement in the administration of the DACF. The Supreme Court’s decision could have significant repercussions for public financial management, the effectiveness of Ghana’s decentralisation agenda, and the overall accountability of public funds. The outcome will be closely watched by civil society, government bodies, and the public alike.
The case is expected to clarify the exclusive mandate of District Assemblies in managing the DACF and set a precedent for the responsible utilisation of funds intended for local development and administration. Observers will be keen to see how the court interprets the constitutional provisions governing the DACF and its disbursement, particularly in relation to the roles of MPs and the integrity of public financial systems.
Leave a Reply