AG prays Supreme Court to dismiss injunction suit against payment of DACF into MPs' accounts

The Attorney-General has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss an application seeking to stop the payment of District Assemblies Common Fund allocations into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament.

In court processes filed on behalf of the respondents, the Attorney-General argues that the application for interlocutory injunction brought by Dr. Yaw Twerefour is without merit and fails to establish the legal grounds required for the grant of such an order.

The suit names the Attorney-General, the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund, the Minister for Local Government, Decentralization and Rural Development, and the Minister for Finance as respondents.

According to the respondents, the disbursements being challenged are made strictly in accordance with the formula approved by Parliament under the Constitution.

They further contend that paying monies into the personal bank accounts of MPs is not, by itself, unlawful or a barrier to transparency and accountability where the law permits such payments.

The Attorney-General’s office maintains that the law does not prevent the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund from paying monies due to Members of Parliament into their respective personal bank accounts.

In an affidavit deposed to by Assistant State Attorney John Enchill, the Attorney-General denies the applicant’s claims and argues that monies duly approved by Parliament for a specific purpose, person and period cannot be treated as lost or at risk of being lost without evidence that they are being administered contrary to Parliament’s direction, formula or intention.

The respondents also argue that the applicant’s case is speculative and does not disclose a prima facie right to the remedies being sought.

They say the applicant has failed to show that there is a serious question to be tried, or that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is refused.

The respondents further submit that the case is essentially about money and that any wrongful payment, if later established, would be quantifiable and recoverable.

On the balance of convenience, the Attorney-General argues that granting the injunction would cause greater harm to public administration than refusing it.

The respondents say an injunction would disrupt the DACF distribution framework, delay or halt development projects at the district and constituency levels, and create administrative and financial uncertainty across the country.

They also maintain that the public interest weighs heavily against the grant of the injunction, particularly because the DACF is a major instrument for local governance, decentralization and development.

The Attorney-General’s office insists that accountability for public funds is better achieved through audits, statutory oversight and parliamentary supervision, rather than interlocutory orders that could stall governance.

The respondents are therefore urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant has failed to satisfy the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.