DACF: AG justifies payment of public funds into personal accounts Of MPs

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 Members of Parliament, noting that the action filed in court seeking to stop the practice is unjustified because the funds are monies due the MPs.

The position of the Attorney General was made known in an affidavit in opposition filed at the Supreme Court Registry on June 19, 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 into the personal bank accounts of the current 276 Members of 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.

The action names four defendants in the matter: the Attorney General (1st Defendant), the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) (2nd Defendant), the Minister for Local Government, Decentralisation 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 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 into the personal accounts of Members of Parliament.

Injunction Application

To this end, the motion, which is expected to be moved before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, seeks 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, Constituency Labour Projects, Constituency Labour Monitoring and Evaluation, or any other form, pending the final determination of this suit.”

Second, it seeks “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 formula, allocations are made to Members of Parliament under headings such as “Constituency Monitoring and Evaluation” and “Constituency Labour Projects”.

He contends that, based on documents he obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application, it is clear 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 accounts of Members of Parliament, are liable to be spent, become difficult, intrusive, or impossible to trace, and cannot realistically be recovered in full,” Dr Twerefour argued in his affidavit.

“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, be preserved.

“This application is necessary to prevent the dissipation of DACF monies, continued unconstitutional conduct and irreparable harm to the public,” Dr Twerefour further argued.

Substantive Action

In the substantive action before the court, Dr Twerefour is seeking eleven reliefs.

The 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.”

The second is “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.”

The third is “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.”

The fourth is “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.”

The fifth is “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.”

The sixth is “a declaration that the disbursement of DACF monies into the 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.”

The seventh is “an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, servants or 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.”

The eighth is “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 (Act 921).”

The ninth is “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.”

The tenth is “an order for the recovery of all monies unlawfully disbursed from the DACF to Members of Parliament through personal or any other account.”

Finally, he seeks any further orders the Court may deem fit for the purpose of restoring constitutional compliance, safeguarding public funds, and ensuring accountability in public financial administration.