Halt payment of DACF money into personal accounts of MPs-Dr.Yaw Twerefour goes to Supreme Court
In substance, the plaintiff wants the Supreme Court to preserve the DACF by stopping the 2nd and 4th defendants from approving, authorising, effecting or permitting any payment, transfer or disbursement of DACF monies to MPs until the constitutional questions raised in the suit are determined.
A Supreme Court action has been filed seeking an interlocutory injunction to stop the allocation, transfer or payment of District Assemblies Common Fund monies to Members of Parliament, including payments into their personal bank accounts, pending the final determination of the case.
The suit, filed by Dr. Yaw Twerefour against 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, asks the court to restrain any DACF disbursement to MPs under descriptions such as “MPs Common Fund,” “Constituency Labour Projects,” or “Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation.”
In substance, the plaintiff wants the Supreme Court to preserve the DACF by stopping the 2nd and 4th defendants from approving, authorising, effecting or permitting any payment, transfer or disbursement of DACF monies to MPs until the constitutional questions raised in the suit are determined.
Dr. Twerefour also specifically seeks an order restraining the payment of any DACF monies into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament.
The plaintiff contends that the DACF is a constitutional fund intended for District Assemblies and that the allocation of portions of the fund to MPs, especially through personal accounts, raises serious constitutional and public accountability concerns.
According to the court filings, the action invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1), 130, 187 and 252 of the 1992 Constitution. The plaintiff argues that the case raises questions about whether Article 252 permits DACF monies to be allocated to MPs, whether public funds may lawfully be paid into personal accounts, and whether such payments undermine constitutional audit and accountability safeguards.
The application relies on DACF formula documents obtained through a Right to Information request, including the 2016 and 2026 formula books. The 2016 formula made provision for “Constituency Projects/Monitoring & Evaluation - MPs,” while the 2026 formula includes allocations for “Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation (MPs)” and “Constituency Labour Projects (MPs).”
The plaintiff also cites a special audit report on the DACF covering 2017 to 2024, which, according to the filing, found that GHS 488 million was disbursed directly into the personal accounts of MPs in relation to Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation, without documentary evidence being provided to the DACF to justify the expenditure.
Dr. Twerefour argues that once public funds are paid into personal accounts, they may be mixed with private funds, making tracing, auditing and recovery difficult or impossible. He says damages would not be an adequate remedy because public funds, once spent, cannot easily be restored.
The plaintiff maintains that the application does not seek to stop DACF allocations to District Assemblies, but only the portion allegedly paid directly or indirectly to MPs under any description.
The motion is expected to be moved before the Supreme Court on June 23, 2026.
