MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The Supreme Court constituted by Pwamang, Kwoffie, Darko Asare, Adjei and Suurbaareh JJSC has dismissed the injunction motion of Dr. Yaw Twerefuor brought on his behalf by the learned former Deputy Attorney-General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah seeking restraints on the Minister of Finance, Hon. Ato Forson and the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund(DACF) from transferring monies from the DACF into the private bank accounts of MPs until the final determination of the writ of Dr. Twerefuor.
The Court displayed its longstanding attitude shown to motions seeking restraints on state institutions. The Court resisted the prayers of the Plaintiff/Applicant on grounds of not disrupting the current state of events whereby monies are transferred from the DACF into the personal bank accounts of Members of Parliament and opting to halt such a practice in a full fledge decision of the Court constructed on reasons rather than an interlocutory ruling.
Do MPs accounts for monies from DACF into ther personal accounts?
Adjei JSC swung the Court's interrogations into accounting to be done by MPs on monies received from the DACF. He directed Mrs. Dapaah to her affidavit and suggested to her that MPs per her own showing through her attached evidence to her injunction motion account for the usage of monies transferred into their personal accounts.
Mrs. Dapaah demurred in what was her eloquent arguments before the Court. She suggested to the Court that MPs do not account for such monies as the Auditor-General has the power to audit only state accounts and therefore, the lens of the Auditor-General does not extend to the personal bank accounts of MPs and therefore, since time immemorial, such monies paid usually in the name of monitoring and evaluation of constituency projects are not subjected to auditing and accounts.
Mrs. Dapaah sensing the mood of the Court to her motion drew to the Court's attention to the demands of the Applicant. According to Mrs. Dapaah, the prayer of Dr. Twerefuor per his motion is for restraints against transfers to just MPs, not all transfers as done from the DACF for the use by MDAs.
about 8 hours ago
9th Jun, 2026
9th Jun, 2026
24th Apr, 2024
The President of the panel, Pwamang JSC asked when the practice began to which Counsel for the Applicant answered since 1997. Armed with the information, the Court formed the view that since the practice has been with us since 1997, "we can live with it. We can live with it and wait till judgment".
Justice Pwamang further conveyed the mind of the Court that they do not wish to disrupt the funding of the monitoring and evaluation activities of MPs funded from transfers from the DACF lodged into their personal bank accounts.
Countermand Parliament by a ruling to a motion?
Justice Pwamang rhetorically asked Mrs. Dapaah if she wishes to countermand a decision of Parliament. Justice Pwamang suggested to Mrs. Dapaah that the Court shall not want to override a decision of parliament by way of a ruling to a motion but rather, provide a well reasoned judgment to do that which the Applicant desires by his motion on just a temporal basis pending the final determination of his writ.
Upon this signal, Mrs.Dapaah jumped unto the balance of convenience train and sought to demonstrate to the Court that the grant of an injunction restraining the Administrator of the DACF and the Finance Minister shall not occasion any inconvenience to the state as the said fraction of the DACF deposited into the personal accounts of MPs shall just sit in the accounts of the DACF if the Court should made the requested restraining orders .
Srem-Sai's turn
The Deputy Attorney-General, who had noticed the cue of the bench exerted little energies in argumentation. He suggested to the Court that no serious issue had been raised by the applicant as the requirement of law of DACF disbursements have not been breached.
He suggested to the attentive Supreme Court bench that the desire of accountability that is depicted by the Applicant's motion is an administrative matter and not constitutional. He added that there was no urgency to be addressed by the court through restraining orders but rather, the grant of the injunction motion shall naturally disrupt the practice that has been in place since 1997.
Motion dismissed
In the voice of Pwamang JSC, the court ruled that the "Application sought for fails and same is accordingly dismissed"
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe