The District Chief Executive (DCE) for Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam in the Central Region, Andrew Kojo Dodoo, has disclosed that the assembly spends GH¢90,000 to construct a mechanised borehole, including drilling, a water storage tank and a supporting structure.
The disclosure was made when Mr Dodoo appeared before Parliament’s Local Government and Rural Development Committee on Thursday, October 8, 2026, to account for the assembly’s expenditure on borehole projects.
The questioning was led by the Member of Parliament for Akyem Oda and Deputy Ranking Member of the committee, Alexander Akwasi Acquah, who sought clarification on the cost components of the projects and the justification for the amount spent on each borehole.
The GH¢90,000 figure prompted questions from committee members, with concerns raised about differences in borehole construction costs among district assemblies across the country.
Responding to questions about the cost of a single borehole, Mr Dodoo explained that the amount covered drilling, the installation of pumping equipment, the provision of a polytank for water storage and the construction of a supporting structure for the tank.
The committee sought further clarification on the specific equipment and materials included in the package, particularly the number of storage tanks and pumping machines installed at each facility.
During the exchanges, the DCE confirmed that the project involved a 5,000-litre water storage tank and two pumping machines, although the discussion did not fully establish the precise configuration and cost of each component.
Committee members subsequently requested a detailed breakdown of the expenditure to enable them to determine whether the GH¢90,000 cost represented value for money.
Mr Dodoo told the committee that the assembly had so far constructed 10 boreholes, explaining that the number was determined by the funds available for the projects.
However, he acknowledged that the 10 boreholes had not addressed the water needs of all communities in the district, leaving some areas still in need of similar facilities.
He said the assembly intended to continue the programme, with plans to construct five additional boreholes in 2026 and extend the initiative into the following year.
The DCE’s explanation suggested that the assembly was implementing the projects in phases, depending on the resources available.
At GH¢90,000 per borehole, the 10 completed facilities represent a total expenditure of GH¢900,000, based on the unit cost he presented to the committee.
The proposed five additional boreholes would require GH¢450,000 at the same rate, subject to the final scope and approved costs of the projects.
When asked who determined that a borehole should cost GH¢90,000, Mr Dodoo said the figure was based on estimates prepared by the assembly’s engineer.
He explained that the engineer had prepared the relevant quantities and cost estimates, which were subsequently submitted to the District Assembly’s General Assembly for approval.
The committee, however, insisted that the approval process and the involvement of a technical officer did not eliminate the need to establish whether the amount was reasonable.
Members wanted the DCE to provide evidence showing how the total cost was distributed among drilling, pumping equipment, water storage and the construction of the supporting structure.
The hearing also raised concerns about variations in the amounts spent by different district assemblies to construct boreholes.
During the discussion, committee members cited examples of borehole projects reportedly costing between GH¢70,000 and GH¢75,000 in some districts, while others were said to cost as much as GH¢140,000.
The differences prompted questions about whether the assemblies were constructing comparable facilities and whether variations in specifications, materials, labour and location accounted for the disparities.
The Member of Parliament for Kwahu Afram Plains South, Joseph Appiah Boateng, argued that a mechanised borehole costing GH¢90,000 is not necessarily expensive, particularly if the project included multiple pumping machines, substantial concrete supports and water storage facilities.
Mr Appiah Boateng attempted to illustrate the potential expenses by citing estimated costs of GH¢11,000 for a polytank, GH¢35,000 for the supporting structure and GH¢25,000 for drilling.
Under his illustration, two tanks would cost GH¢22,000, while the combined cost of the tanks, the supporting structure and drilling would reach GH¢82,000 before other expenses were considered.
He therefore argued that the contractor’s profit margin could be relatively modest after accounting for the various components.
However, the committee maintained that such general estimates could not substitute for an itemised breakdown of the actual expenditure incurred by the Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam District Assembly.
The committee emphasised that it is not enough for the DCE to state that an engineer had prepared the estimates and that the assembly had approved them.
Members said they needed documentary evidence detailing the materials, equipment, labour and other expenses covered by the GH¢90,000 cost.
The committee also sought clarification on whether the pumping equipment and storage facilities described during the hearing were included in the stated amount and how the specifications compared with those of boreholes constructed at lower costs elsewhere.
In response, members indicated that the assembly would be required to provide supporting details for further examination.
The committee explained that the exercise was intended to establish an appropriate benchmark for borehole construction costs and determine whether public funds were being used efficiently.
It noted that if GH¢90,000 represented a reasonable cost for a borehole with the stated specifications, the figure could help inform best practices for other assemblies.
However, if the amount are found to be excessive, the committee would need to establish the factors responsible for the higher expenditure.
Members also acknowledged that construction costs could differ depending on location, labour requirements and the specifications of the facilities being provided.
They nevertheless insisted that such differences must be supported by clear explanations, particularly where public funds are involved.
The discussion highlights the importance of transparency in the use of public resources for rural water infrastructure, especially as district assemblies seek to extend access to potable water in underserved communities.
Mechanised boreholes can provide a more reliable water supply to communities, but their construction costs may vary depending on drilling conditions, equipment, storage capacity, power arrangements and the design of supporting structures.
The committee’s concerns centred on establishing whether the GH¢90,000 spent by the Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam District Assembly was justified by the actual specifications and work undertaken.
A detailed cost breakdown would enable members to compare the assembly’s projects with similar facilities elsewhere and determine whether differences in expenditure reflected legitimate technical requirements or inefficiencies in procurement and construction.
The committee indicated that it would revisit the matter after receiving the necessary information from the DCE.
Mr Dodoo is expected to provide evidence detailing the components of the GH¢90,000 expenditure to assist the committee in its assessment.
The outcome of that review could help clarify the reasons behind the varying costs of borehole projects across district assemblies and inform efforts to promote value for money in the delivery of rural water infrastructure.
By 1960news.com
