A legal challenge has been filed at the Supreme Court seeking to halt the allocation and disbursement of District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) monies to Members of Parliament (MPs), pending the determination of constitutional questions surrounding the practice.
The plaintiff, Dr. Yaw Twerefour, has sued the Attorney-General, the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund, the Minister for Local Government, Decentralisation and Rural Development, and the Minister for Finance over what he describes as unconstitutional allocations of DACF resources to MPs.
In an application for an interlocutory injunction, Dr. Twerefour is asking the apex court to restrain the defendants from approving, authorising, transferring or disbursing any DACF monies to MPs under categories such as “MPs Common Fund,” “Constituency Labour Projects,” and “Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation” until the substantive suit is determined.
He is also seeking a specific order preventing any DACF monies from being paid into the personal bank accounts of MPs.
According to court filings, the suit invokes the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1), 130, 187 and 252 of the 1992 Constitution. The plaintiff argues that the DACF is a constitutional fund intended for District Assemblies and that allocations to MPs raise serious constitutional, accountability and public finance concerns.
Dr. Twerefour is asking the court to determine whether Article 252 of the Constitution permits portions of the DACF to be allocated to MPs and whether public funds can lawfully be transferred into the personal accounts of public officials.
The application relies on DACF formula documents obtained through a Right to Information request, including the 2016 and 2026 formula books. According to the filing, the documents contain allocations for MPs under various constituency-related projects and monitoring activities.
The plaintiff further cites a special audit report on the DACF covering the period between 2017 and 2024, which allegedly found that GH¢488 million was disbursed directly into MPs’ personal accounts for Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation activities without documentary evidence being submitted to justify the expenditure.
Dr. Twerefour contends that once public funds are paid into personal accounts, they may be mixed with private funds, making tracing, auditing and possible recovery difficult. He argues that monetary compensation would not be an adequate remedy should the payments continue because public funds, once spent, may be impossible to recover.
He, however, maintains that the injunction application is not intended to halt DACF allocations to Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies, but rather the portions allegedly paid directly or indirectly to MPs.
The motion is expected to be moved before the Supreme Court on June 23, 2026.
CREDIT: MAVIS FANTEVI
