A Ghanaian citizen, Dr Yaw Twerefour, has petitioned the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the long-standing practice of allocating portions of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) to Members of Parliament (MPs).

The suit, filed under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution, invokes the original jurisdiction of the apex court and seeks a definitive interpretation of Article 252, which establishes the DACF.

In the document published by the Law Platform on June 9, 2026, Dr Twerefour argued that the fund was constitutionally created for District Assemblies and that any allocation, transfer or disbursement of DACF resources to MPs falls outside the constitutional framework governing decentralised development.

The action challenges a practice that has existed since the late 1990s, under which portions of the DACF have been earmarked for MPs under various labels, including "MPs Common Fund," "Constituency Labour Projects," and "Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation."

According to the plaintiff, these arrangements have no constitutional or statutory foundation and were introduced through administrative and political decisions rather than legislation.

A central issue in the case is the alleged payment of DACF monies into the personal bank accounts of some Members of Parliament.

Dr Twerefour contends that such payments undermine accountability and transparency in the management of public funds, arguing that monies transferred into personal accounts leave the direct control of District Assemblies and become more difficult to track through established public financial management systems.

The suit further alleges that the practice weakens the oversight responsibilities of the Auditor-General and may violate Article 187 of the Constitution as well as provisions of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).

Recasting Ghana's District Assemblies Common Fund

The plaintiff maintains that Ghana's decentralisation framework assigns responsibility for local development planning and implementation to District Assemblies, which are recognised as the highest political and administrative authorities at the local level.

Although Members of Parliament serve as ex-officio members of District Assemblies, the suit argues that such status does not confer authority to administer, supervise or receive DACF monies.

Dr Twerefour also rejects the justification that MPs require DACF allocations to undertake constituency monitoring and evaluation activities. He argues that any such functions can be performed within existing District Assembly structures without the need for public funds to be transferred to individual legislators.

According to the filing, allowing MPs to receive DACF allocations effectively creates a parallel financial mechanism outside the constitutional structures established to ensure local governance, accountability and prudent financial management.

The plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the DACF is exclusively reserved for District Assemblies and that any allocation or disbursement of the fund to Members of Parliament is unconstitutional, null and void.

He is also seeking orders to halt future payments of DACF monies to MPs under any designation and to compel strict compliance with the constitutional and statutory framework governing the administration of the fund.

Named as defendants in the suit are the Attorney-General, the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund, the Minister for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, and the Minister for Finance.

The case is expected to test the constitutional limits of the DACF and determine whether the long-standing practice of allocating portions of the fund to Members of Parliament is compatible with Ghana's decentralisation framework and public financial management laws.

VPO