Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, has justified the payment of District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) monies into the personal accounts of MP’s, noting that the action filed in court seeking to stop the practice is abstract and speculative.
The position of the Attorney General was made known in an affidavit in opposition filed at the Supreme Court registry on 19 June 2026 in response to an action instituted at the Supreme Court by a Ghanaian citizen, Dr Yaw Twerefour, challenging the constitutionality of the practice of paying public funds to the personal bank accounts of the current two hundred and seventy-six (276) Members who constitute the country’s Parliament.
As part of his action, Dr Twerefour, through his lawyer, Diana Asonaba Dapaah, of Sam Okudzeto & Associates, has also filed a motion seeking an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) and the Minister for Finance from “paying, transferring, or causing to be paid any DACF monies into the personal bank accounts of MPs pending the final determination of the action he has filed.
The action essentially names four defendants. They are the Attorney General (1st Defendant), the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) (2nd Defendant), the Minister for Local Government, Decentralization and Rural Development (3rd Defendant), and the Minister for Finance (4th Defendant).
The Attorney General’s Affidavit in opposition to the application for interlocutory injunction deposed to by one John Enchill, an Assistant State Attorney at the office of the Attorney General, essentially prays the Supreme Court to dismiss the application on the grounds that public interest strongly opposes the attempt by the applicant to stop the payment of public funds to the personal accounts of Members of Parliament.
The Supreme Court, at the hearing of the injunction application on Tuesday, 23 June 2026, dismissed it. The apex court of the land indicated that not stopping the payments of DACF monies to MPs during the pendency of the case will not cause any disadvantage to the plaintiff in the matter.
Injunction
To this end, the motion which is expected to be moved at the Supreme Court on Tuesday. 23 June 2026, by lawyers of the application will seek first, “an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd and 4th Defendants whether by themselves, their agents, assigns or howsoever described from approving, authorising, effecting or permitting the payment, transfer or disbursement of any monies from the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) to Members of Parliament in the form of MPs Common Fund” or “Constituency Labour Projects” or “Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation” or any other form, pending the final determination of this suit.”
Second, “an order of interlocutory injunction specifically restraining the 2nd and 4th Defendants from paying, transferring or causing to be paid any DACF monies into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament, pending the final determination of this suit upon the grounds set forth in the accompanying affidavit and for any further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit.”
Contention of Applicant
In his affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction, Dr Twerefour argues that the DACF disburses monies based on a long-standing formula approved by Parliament as prescribed by the Constitution. However, as part of the payment, DACF makes as part of the formula, allocations to Members of Parliament under headings such as ‘Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation’ and ” Constituency Labour Projects.
He contends that by virtue of documents he has obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application, it is clear to him that DACF monies are expressly allocated to Members of Parliament, and distributed as a defined component of the Fund.
“DACF monies additionally, are paid directly into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament and these monies are substantial sums disbursed with no adequate documentation or accountability provided for the utilisation of the said funds.
“Such funds once paid into the personal account of Members of Parliament are liable to be spent; become difficult or intrusive or impossible to trace and cannot be realistically recovered in full,” Dr Twerefour argued in his affidavits.
“This matter raises issues of constitutional governance, integrity of public financial management and protection of public funds and it is in the public interest that the subject matter, DACF monies, are preserved.
“This application is necessary to prevent dissipation of DACF monies, continued unconstitutional conduct and irreparable harm to the public,” the applicant, Dr Yaw Twerefour further argued in his affidavit in support of his injunction application.
Substantive Action
In the substantive action before the court, Dr Twerefour is seeking eleven reliefs. First is “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of articles 252(1) (2) and (3) of the Constitution, the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) is a constitutionally earmarked fund exclusively for the benefit, administration and utilisation of District Assemblies, and not for allocation to or control by Members of Parliament or any other entity or person.
Second, “a declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of article 252 of the Constitution, the approval and implementation of any formula for the distribution of the DACF which allocates or earmarks a portion thereof to Members of Parliament, including but not limited to “MPs Common Fund”, “Constituency Labour Projects’ and “Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation,” is inconsistent with article 252 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void.”
Third, “a declaration that the payment, transfer or disbursement of DACF monies into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament is unconstitutional being inconsistent with articles 187 and 252 of the Constitution and the principles of public financial accountability inherent in the Constitution.
Fourth, “a declaration that the said practice of removing public funds from institutional public accounts into personal custody, defeats the audit mandate of the Auditor-General under article 187 and is therefore unconstitutional.
Fifth, “a declaration that the two referenced practices above are inconsistent with the constitutional framework of Decentralisation under Chapter 20 of the Constitution, by diverting financial control away from District Assemblies.”
Sixth, “a declaration that the disbursement of DACF monies into personal accounts of Members of Parliament creates a system that is inherently prone to misapplication, diversion, lack of traceability and potential financial loss to the State, and is therefore unconstitutional
Seventh, “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, servants of assigns, from allocating, disbursing or permitting the disbursement of any monies from the DACF to Members of Parliament otherwise than through District Assemblies in accordance with article 252.
Eighth, “an order directing the Defendants, particularly the 2nd and 4th Defendants, to ensure that all future DACF disbursements are made strictly into designated public accounts of District Assemblies and in compliance with the Constitution and the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Ac 921).
Ninth, “an order directed at the Auditor-General pursuant to article 187 to conduct a comprehensive audit of all monies disbursed from the DACF to Members of Parliament and report on the utilisation and accountability of such funds.”
Tenth, “an order for the recovery of all monies unlawfully disbursed from the DACF to Members of Parliament through personal or any other account,” and lastly, such further or other orders as the honourable Court may deem fit for the purpose of restoring constitutional compliance, safeguarding public funds and ensuring accountability in public financial administration.”
