The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, has defended the payment of District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) allocations into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament, insisting that the practice is lawful and represents monies due to MPs.
His position was contained in an affidavit in opposition filed at the registry of the Supreme Court on 19 June 2026, in response to a suit challenging the constitutionality of the arrangement.
The case was brought by a Ghanaian citizen, Dr Yaw Twerefour, who is questioning the legality of paying public funds into the personal accounts of all 276 Members of Parliament. He argues that the practice undermines transparency and breaches constitutional provisions on public financial management.
Through his legal team, led by Diana Asonaba Dapaah of Sam Okudzeto & Associates, the plaintiff has also filed for an interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund and the Minister for Finance from continuing the payments into MPs’ personal accounts until the case is fully determined.
The suit names four defendants: 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.
In his affidavit, deposed by Assistant State Attorney John Enchill, the Attorney General’s office urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, arguing that it is not in the public interest to halt the disbursement of funds it considers properly allocated to MPs.
The application for interlocutory injunction is expected to be heard on Tuesday, 23 June 2026. The plaintiff is seeking an order to immediately stop the 2nd and 4th defendants from approving or processing any DACF-related payments to MPs under various programme descriptions, including Constituency Labour Projects and Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation, pending final determination of the case.
He is also asking the court to specifically restrain the transfer of any DACF funds into the personal accounts of Members of Parliament.
Plaintiff’s Argument
In his supporting affidavit, Dr Twerefour argues that the DACF is governed by a constitutional formula approved by Parliament and intended exclusively for district assemblies.
He contends that portions of the fund currently labelled under schemes such as “MPs Common Fund,” “Constituency Labour Projects,” and “Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation” are inconsistent with Article 252 of the Constitution.
Relying on information obtained through a Right to Information request, he argues that the funds are routinely paid directly into MPs’ personal accounts without sufficient documentation or accountability.
According to him, once transferred, the funds become difficult to trace or recover, raising concerns about transparency and potential misuse.
“This matter raises fundamental issues of constitutional governance and public financial accountability,” he stated, adding that the court’s intervention is necessary to prevent what he describes as the “dissipation of public funds.”
Substantive Reliefs Sought
In the main case before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is seeking a series of declarations and orders, including a ruling that the DACF is constitutionally reserved for district assemblies and not for individual MPs.
He is also asking the court to declare that any allocation of DACF funds to MPs, whether directly or under constituency-based programmes, is unconstitutional and void.
Other reliefs include a declaration that payment of DACF monies into MPs’ personal accounts violates Articles 187 and 252 of the Constitution, as well as an order directing that all future disbursements be made strictly through district assembly accounts.
The plaintiff is further seeking a directive for the Auditor-General to conduct a comprehensive audit of past disbursements to MPs, as well as an order for the recovery of any funds deemed to have been improperly paid.
He is also requesting a perpetual injunction to stop the practice entirely and any additional orders the court may deem necessary to ensure compliance with the Constitution and strengthen accountability in public financial management.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider both the interlocutory application and the broader constitutional questions in the coming proceedings.