- Each MP to receive GH₵966,304 for project monitoring, totaling GH₵266 million.
-
Critics argue GETFund and District Assemblies are better suited for the task.
-
Education experts question the necessity and efficiency of the allocation.
 |
| Approval of GH₵266M for MPs to oversee GETFund and DACF projects sparks national debate |
Ghana’s Parliament has approved a GH₵966,304 allocation for each Member of Parliament (MP) to monitor projects funded by the Ghana Education Trust Fund (GETFund) and the District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF). With 275 MPs, this decision amounts to approximately GH₵266 million—a move that has sparked widespread criticism and debate.
PAY ATTENTION: Follow THE MIRASPECT's WhatsApp channel for a daily dose of breaking news on the go!
While proponents argue that MPs should play an active role in ensuring accountability for government-funded projects, critics believe the allocation duplicates responsibilities already handled by institutions like GETFund and district assemblies.
Education Experts Question the Move
One of the leading voices opposing the decision is Africa Education Watch, an education-focused think tank. Its Executive Director, Kofi Asare, has raised concerns over the necessity of involving MPs in project monitoring when GETFund already has the institutional capacity to oversee its projects nationwide.
"The challenge emerges because GETFund, as an institution, has the capacity to monitor its projects across the country. So one wonders why we need MPs to monitor GETFund projects," Asare stated.
He further argued that constituencies are political electoral units, not administrative ones, making district assemblies the appropriate bodies to monitor government projects, not MPs.
"If there’s any need for monitoring support, it should go to the district assembly and not MPs, who are not spending officers," he emphasized.
Public Concerns Over Wasteful Spending
The GH₵266 million allocation has ignited a broader debate on public resource management and the role of MPs in project oversight. Many believe the funds could be better utilized by strengthening existing institutions rather than creating potential overlaps and inefficiencies.
Critics fear that giving MPs direct access to such funds could lead to misuse or political favoritism rather than proper accountability.
Calls for Reassessment
As public discourse intensifies, stakeholders are calling for a review of the decision to ensure efficient resource allocation and transparency in project monitoring.
With education funding already a pressing issue, many argue that rather than distributing funds to MPs, efforts should focus on empowering education and administrative bodies to fulfill their mandates effectively.
The debate continues: Should MPs be involved in project monitoring, or should institutions like GETFund and district assemblies take full charge?
New Source: NEWSCENTA
PAY ATTENTION: Follow THE MIRASPECT's WhatsApp channel for a daily dose of breaking news on the go!
0 Comments