Professor Kwamena Ahwoi’s contribution to the national dialogue on decentralisation deserves to be engaged on its merits. At a forum convened to “reset decentralisation for responsive local governance and effective service delivery,” Prof. Ahwoi set out a series of concrete, evidence-based propositions about the structure and practice of local government in Ghana. Those propositions have been met with a swift rebuttal from the Minority in Parliament; yet the rebuttal so far relies on political assertions rather than technical counter-evidence.
What Prof. Ahwoi actually said
Prof. Ahwoi warned that Ghana has probably passed the “optimum” number of Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) and that many newly created assemblies are not viable for planning or service delivery. He noted that some upgraded assemblies do not meet the legal population thresholds set out in the law.
He further pointed out that six additional regions were created between 2018 and 2019 and described that rapid regional expansion in just two years as an “overreach,” arguing it has produced few tangible benefits to date.
He urged that the Constitution Review Committee and policy makers use the constitutional review process to clarify what decentralisation should mean—politically, administratively and economically—and to safeguard the principles of non-partisan, accountable local government. He also called for improved capacity-building for assembly members and for merit-based appointments of MMDCEs.
These are policy propositions rooted in the law and in decades of practice. They reference the Local Government Act (Act 462) and the Local Governance Act (Act 936), which set out criteria—including population and economic viability—for the creation and classification of districts and municipalities. That legal framework is precisely what Prof. Ahwoi says has been inconsistently observed.
What the Minority said — and where their response falls short
The Minority’s statement defends the creation of new districts and regions as a deliberate policy to “bring government closer to the people” and to open up opportunities for previously underserved communities. It also asserts that newly created MMDAs satisfied statutory population and viability criteria and points to new regional offices and projects as evidence of benefit.
Those are legitimate lines of argument, but they answer a different question. Prof. Ahwoi’s point is not a blanket rejection of decentralisation; it is a technical critique of process, thresholds, capacity and outcomes. If the Minority believes the new units meet statutory tests and are delivering measurable improvement, the simplest, most responsible response is to publish the evidence: the population and viability reports, the service delivery indicators since creation, and proof of adequate funding for the new assemblies. To date, the Minority has offered assertion without documentation.
If the Minority genuinely believes its policy of creating more districts and regions has produced superior outcomes, the onus is on them to demonstrate it. Publish the data, open the records, and allow Ghanaians to judge. Without such evidence, their response is nothing more than empty rhetoric.
When a seasoned scholar who helped shape the system points to legal, demographic and fiscal mismatch, the correct response from parliamentarians is to provide technical counter-evidence or to acknowledge the need for reform. If the Minority cannot produce that evidence, they should refrain from the kind of dismissive commentary that insults the intelligence of the Ghanaian people.
It is also fair to recall that the party now forming the Minority held national office for eight years through two successive terms. Many of the structural challenges Prof. Ahwoi describes—dependence on central transfers, weak internally generated funds at the local level, inconsistent adherence to statutory thresholds—were issues during that period as well. Assemblies were left underfunded and under-capacitated. To now mount a defensive argument without admitting this record only deepens the contradictions in their position.
Ghana cannot afford politics of noise-making. The nation is at a stage where institutions must be reset for serious development, not reduced to partisan point-scoring. The Minority’s attempt to downplay Prof. Ahwoi’s sober, evidence-based propositions is a disservice to the people they claim to represent.
Ghanaians must reject this type of politics that thrives on noise just to stay relevant. The country requires leaders who are ready to engage with facts, respect expertise, and chart a clear path for responsive local governance. Anything less is an obstacle to progress.
By Julius Blay JABS
