Ghana plans to allow citizens to elect their Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives (MMDCEs). This marks a significant shift in local governance. Parliament is preparing constitutional amendments to enable this change, which enjoys broad public support.
This initiative follows a commitment from the Mahama administration to introduce non-partisan elections for local leaders. A survey by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) revealed that nearly seven in ten Ghanaians support this reform. This widespread consensus highlights a shared desire for greater local accountability.
The move aligns with Ghana's long-standing efforts to strengthen decentralisation. However, Ghana's local governance system has consistently struggled with financial instability. The District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF), established by Article 252 of the 1992 Constitution, mandates quarterly disbursements to district assemblies. Yet, these payments have been routinely delayed or ignored by successive governments for years.
The MyJoyOnline report highlights severe deficiencies within the existing local government framework. By 2024, Members of Parliament confirmed arrears of GHS 3.5 billion owed to district assemblies over just two years. A Supreme Court ruling in 2019, which affirmed the constitutional minimum of five percent of national revenue for the fund, has not led to consistent compliance. Many disbursements counted as payments in 2024 were actually settlements of debts from as far back as 2014 and 2016, indicating a decade-long pattern of unpaid obligations.
The introduction of elected MMDCEs is intended to enhance accountability and local development. However, these new leaders will inherit a fiscally constrained system. An elected official with a popular mandate cannot magically fill an empty treasury. Districts unable to pay contractors today will likely face the same issues even with elected representation. The proposed reform package does not directly address these fundamental fiscal shortcomings.
Beyond fiscal challenges, the sub-district structures designed to connect assemblies to communities are largely dormant. Unit committees, town councils, and area councils suffer from inadequate staffing, poor logistics, and weak revenue bases. This has led citizens to bypass these structures and turn to Members of Parliament or traditional chiefs for solutions. Voter turnout in district-level elections has been as low as 30 percent in some areas. This low engagement suggests a weak demand for local democracy. Simply electing the person at the top does not revitalize these dormant institutions.
The reform package includes more than just MMDCE elections. A phased rollout of elections is proposed, not a simultaneous national exercise. A new Devolution Commission would determine which districts meet benchmarks before holding elections. The Ministry of Local Government also plans to upgrade the Institute of Local Government Studies into a full university. A new National Decentralisation Policy for 2025-2029 is also before cabinet. These combined efforts represent the most comprehensive package of local governance reform in a generation.
However, the phased approach raises questions about standards, timelines, and resource allocation. Without clear answers, the Devolution Commission risks becoming a mechanism for deferring difficult decisions rather than driving progress. Decision-makers must address the chronic underfunding and weak institutional structures to ensure the success of this monumental reform. The effectiveness of elected MMDCEs will depend on whether they can operate within a financially viable and institutionally robust system.