Here is the rewritten article, structured with clean HTML, optimized for SEO, and expanded with pedagogical depth to meet the word count and quality requirements.

Ada PWDs Boycott Assembly Disbursement Over Procurement Issues – Life Pulse Daily

Introduction

In a significant development highlighting the critical intersection of disability rights, public finance management, and local governance, persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Ada East District of Ghana have taken a firm stand against their local government assembly. On December 23, 2025, a planned disbursement of funds and items intended to support the livelihoods of beneficiaries was boycotted. This collective action was not taken lightly; rather, it was a calculated protest against alleged procurement breaches and a lack of transparency in the management of the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF).

This incident serves as a compelling case study on the importance of strict adherence to public procurement laws in developing nations. It underscores the vulnerability of marginalized groups when administrative processes are bypassed. The boycott, led by the District Disability Fund Management Committee, reveals a deep-seated demand for accountability and the rule of law. As the situation unfolds, it raises pertinent questions about the efficiency of decentralized governance and the mechanisms available to protect the rights of beneficiaries in social intervention programs.

Key Points

Background

The District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) is a crucial affirmative action policy in Ghana designed to facilitate the development of districts and support vulnerable populations. A specific percentage of this fund is constitutionally and statutorily reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) to support their economic empowerment, education, health, and mobility needs. However, the management of these funds at the local level often involves complex administrative procedures.

In the Ada East District, the management of these specific funds involves a collaborative effort between the District Assembly and the District Disability Fund Management Committee. This committee is tasked with vetting beneficiaries and ensuring that the procurement and distribution of items align with the needs of the community. Prior to the December 23 incident, the committee had already compiled data on eligible beneficiaries, yet no official date had been set for disbursement, creating an atmosphere of anticipation and uncertainty.

According to Mr. Theophilus Dugbatey Ayim, the Chairperson of the District Disability Fund Management Committee and a member of the Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Social Services, the district has established specific by-laws governing procurement. These by-laws are designed to ensure competitive pricing, quality assurance, and the prevention of corruption by mandating that all items be procured through the District Procurement Officer. The events of December 2025, however, suggest a deviation from these established protocols.

Analysis

The boycott by the Ada East PWDs represents a critical moment of civic engagement and a demand for democratic accountability. The core of the dispute lies not in the availability of funds or items, but in the process of their acquisition. When public funds are managed, the “how” is often just as important as the “what.”

The Procurement Breach Allegation

At the heart of the protest is the allegation that an “external person” was engaged to procure items intended for distribution. In public financial management, this is a serious breach. The Public Procurement Act (Act 663) in Ghana establishes a framework to ensure value for money, fairness, transparency, and competitiveness. By bypassing the District Procurement Officer, the Assembly allegedly removed a layer of oversight. This not only risks inflating costs or receiving substandard goods but also erodes trust between the government and the governed.

Procedural Injustice and Lack of Consultation

Mr. Ayim noted that the committee was only informed of the disbursement date one day prior (December 22 for a December 23 event). This lack of adequate notice is a procedural injustice. For persons with disabilities, logistical planning is often more complex than for the general population. Short notice prevents proper mobilization and undermines the dignity of the beneficiaries, treating them as passive recipients rather than active stakeholders.

The Impact of the Boycott

The result of this breakdown in communication and process was a near-empty disbursement venue. Out of 156 registered beneficiaries, fewer than 20 attended. This low turnout forced the Social Welfare Department to resort to distributing perishable items like fresh tilapia, okro, and onions directly to homes. While this ensured the items did not go to waste, it highlights a chaotic and reactive administrative response to a crisis that could have been avoided through proper consultation and adherence to by-laws.

Practical Advice

For stakeholders involved in the management of social intervention funds, this incident in Ada East offers several lessons on how to navigate procurement and beneficiary relations effectively.

For District Assemblies and Administrators

To prevent similar boycotts and ensure smooth disbursement, Assemblies should:

1. Establish Clear Timelines: Create and publish a disbursement calendar well in advance. This allows beneficiaries and management committees to plan effectively.
2. Respect Procurement Laws: Strictly adhere to the Public Procurement Act. Utilize the District Procurement Officer for all acquisitions to ensure transparency and avoid allegations of corruption.
3. Enhance Communication: Treat beneficiary groups as partners. Hold regular stakeholder meetings to discuss plans, challenges, and timelines before executing disbursement exercises.

For Beneficiary Groups (PWDs and Advocacy Committees)

When facing administrative irregularities, beneficiary groups can take the following steps:

1. Document Evidence: Keep records of all communications, procurement orders, and meeting minutes. This evidence is vital if the matter escalates to higher regulatory bodies.
2. Utilize Official Channels: Engage with the Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Social Services and the Department of Social Welfare formally before resorting to public boycotts, if time permits.
3. Know the Law: Familiarize yourselves with the specific by-laws of the district and the national Public Procurement Act. Knowing the rules gives you the leverage to demand compliance.

FAQ

Conclusion

The boycott of the Ada East District Assembly’s disbursement exercise by persons with disabilities is a stark reminder of the necessity for transparency in public fund management. It is not merely a dispute over items but a fundamental assertion of the right to due process. The alleged bypassing of the District Procurement Officer undermines the safeguards designed to protect public resources and the dignity of vulnerable beneficiaries.

While the District Chief Executive has called for dialogue, the incident highlights the need for systemic reforms in how local governments interact with PWDs. Moving forward, strict adherence to procurement laws and proactive communication are essential to rebuilding trust. The Ada East situation serves as a valuable lesson for all districts in Ghana: when administrative processes are opaque, the intended beneficiaries are often the first to notice, and they have the right to demand better.

Sources

• Ghana News Agency (GNA) – Report on Ada East District Assembly Disbursement (December 23, 2025).
• Public Procurement Authority, Ghana – Guidelines on Public Procurement.
• Government of Ghana – District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) Regulations.