Professor Eric Kwabena Kyeh Abavare, President of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) chapter of the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG), has called for reforms to Ghana’s local government system, including the phased election of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs) and an increase in the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) from 5% to at least 10% of national revenue.
In the seventh part of his nine-part commentary on the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC) report, Prof. Abavare argues that the proposals could strengthen local governance by transferring greater decision-making powers and financial resources from central government to District Assemblies.
Titled “Elected Mayors and a 10% Common Fund — The Real Decentralisation,” the commentary also proposes the establishment of an independent Local Government Devolution Commission (LGDC) to oversee the transfer of responsibilities and resources to local authorities and assess the viability of districts.
Prof. Abavare contends that Ghana’s decentralisation system has not fully empowered local authorities, leaving many communities dependent on decisions made in Accra to address pressing development needs.
He believes the proposed reforms could bring leadership closer to residents, improve public service delivery and strengthen accountability at the local level.
Explaining his personal interest in the reforms, Prof. Abavare recalls growing up in a district where the District Chief Executive (DCE) lived in Accra and visited the area only occasionally.
He says decisions concerning roads, schools and markets often had to be referred to Accra, where they could remain pending for extended periods before the outcomes were communicated to the communities concerned.
According to him, similar challenges persist decades later, raising concerns about whether decentralisation has delivered the intended level of autonomy to local authorities.
“Decentralisation, in Ghana, has largely been a word people said at conferences,” he writes, arguing that the system has failed to give local authorities sufficient control over decisions affecting their communities.
He maintains that the CRC’s proposals offer an opportunity to address these shortcomings by empowering districts to determine their leadership, manage resources and respond more directly to local development priorities.
A major recommendation highlighted in the commentary is the phased introduction of elections for MMDCEs to replace the existing presidential appointment system.
Under the proposed arrangement, residents in designated voting districts would directly elect their chief executives. In districts classified as non-voting districts, the chief executives would be elected indirectly by a two-thirds majority of the respective District Assemblies.
For the indirect elections, candidates would be selected from a list of persons pre-qualified by the proposed LGDC and the Public Services Commission.
The elections would be conducted on a strictly non-partisan basis, with candidates contesting without formal political party sponsorship.
Prof. Abavare argues that this approach would encourage voters to assess candidates based on their competence, manifestos and commitment to local development rather than their political affiliations.
He also links the proposal to Article 55(3) of the 1992 Constitution, which prohibits political parties from sponsoring candidates in district-level elections.
According to him, allowing the intense partisan competition associated with national elections to extend to hundreds of districts could heighten political tensions and undermine effective local governance.
However, he acknowledges that enforcing non-partisanship would be challenging because the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have well-established grassroots networks capable of influencing local contests.
He warns that party operatives could attempt to circumvent the rules by supporting proxy candidates who appear independent but are aligned with their political interests.
Prof. Abavare therefore stresses the need for effective enforcement mechanisms to prevent political parties from exercising indirect control over the proposed elections.
Prof. Abavare also supports the proposed increase in the DACF allocation from 5% to at least 10% of national revenue, describing it as an important step towards strengthening the financial independence of local authorities.
The proposal, combined with the recommended abolition of the Common Fund share allocated to Members of Parliament and improvements in the financial management capacity of District Assemblies, would redirect more resources towards local development.
He argues that predictable funding would enable assemblies to plan and implement projects based on the needs of their communities rather than relying excessively on central government interventions.
The resources could support road construction and maintenance, school rehabilitation, market improvements, health infrastructure, drainage works and local emergency services.
Prof. Abavare says adequately funded assemblies would be better positioned to address urgent problems, such as clearing drains before the rainy season, without waiting for prolonged ministerial approvals.
He maintains that the proposed increase should not simply result in more money being allocated to local authorities. It should also ensure that public funds translate into tangible improvements in residents’ lives.
The commentary further argues that communities would be better placed to demand accountability when local leaders have both the resources and the authority to deliver development projects.
Another key recommendation is the establishment of a permanent LGDC as an independent constitutional body.
The proposed commission would coordinate the phased transfer of functions and funds to local authorities, assess district viability and help prevent the creation of new districts primarily for political purposes.
Prof. Abavare argues that giving the commission constitutional status would provide institutional stability and make it less vulnerable to changes in government priorities.
He also believes it would help ensure that districts have the administrative capacity, financial resources and institutional structures required to perform their responsibilities effectively.
The commentary raises concerns about the expansion of Ghana’s district structure, noting that the country had 110 districts in 2004 but now has more than 260.
Prof. Abavare argues that the increase in the number of districts has not necessarily translated into deeper decentralisation or better public services.
He therefore calls for greater emphasis on strengthening existing assemblies and ensuring that they have the capacity to deliver their mandates, rather than relying primarily on the creation of additional administrative units.
The proposed commission would play a central role in determining whether districts are viable and capable of managing the responsibilities assigned to them.
Prof. Abavare argues that the greatest beneficiaries of meaningful decentralisation should be ordinary citizens, particularly residents of underserved communities and people who depend on local public services.
With adequate funding and greater decision-making powers, District Assemblies could respond more quickly to community needs, including improving market facilities, maintaining school buildings, addressing drainage problems and strengthening local emergency response.
He believes that electing MMDCEs would also create stronger incentives for local leaders to demonstrate results and remain responsive to residents.
Under the proposed system, candidates would have to present their development priorities to voters in designated voting districts, while the indirect election process in other districts would require Assembly members to select candidates from a pre-qualified list.
The combination of local leadership and predictable funding, Prof. Abavare argues, could make public officials more accountable for development outcomes.
However, he cautions that elections and increased funding alone would not guarantee better governance. Transparent expenditure, effective monitoring and strong institutional oversight would be necessary to ensure that the reforms achieve their intended objectives.
Despite his support for the proposals, Prof. Abavare identifies political interference as a significant risk, particularly in the proposed non-partisan MMDCE elections.
He warns that political parties could use informal networks and proxy candidates to influence the contests, undermining the objective of separating local government leadership from partisan politics.
He therefore calls for enforceable rules capable of preventing political capture and ensuring that candidates compete on the strength of their leadership abilities and development plans.
The proposed increase in the Common Fund would similarly require stronger financial management systems to ensure that resources are used efficiently and projects deliver measurable benefits.
The LGDC, meanwhile, would need sufficient independence, authority and resources to coordinate the transfer of functions and funds and assess the viability of districts.
For Prof. Abavare, decentralisation must involve more than distributing administrative responsibilities across the country. Local authorities must also have the financial resources and decision-making powers required to fulfil those responsibilities.
He believes the CRC’s recommendations could help address the longstanding concentration of power in Accra and establish a local government system that is more responsive to the needs of communities.
If adopted and effectively implemented, the proposals could strengthen elected local leadership, improve the distribution of public resources and make district-level governance more accountable to the people it serves.
By 1960news.com
