The ad hoc committee probing the botched December 2025 Disability Fund disbursement in Ada East has struck a controversial compromise with the Assembly Administration — agreeing to pay an additional 20% to a vendor whose engagement breached national guidelines, using money from the Disability Fund itself.
The disclosure was made by the Presiding Member of the Assembly and Chairman of the investigative committee, Hon. Philip Achia, in an exclusive interview with DisabilityNewsGH.com.
The move has raised questions about procedural propriety, with observers asking why a committee tasked to investigate the Assembly Administration is negotiating a financial settlement with the same Administration instead of submitting its report to the General Assembly for a decision.
The compromise comes as the committee concluded its probe into how items valued at just GH¢15,800 were delivered against an approved budget of GH¢77,000 for 24 Persons with Disabilities (PWDs).
The committee itself calculates a total loss of GH¢61,200 — representing a 79.5% loss — needed to fully cover what beneficiaries were originally approved to receive.
According to Hon. Achia, the committee and the Assembly Administration resolved to compensate the supplier after the Administration argued that his actual costs exceeded the conservative market valuations calculated by the committee during beneficiary testimonies.
Crucially, rather than surcharging the officers who engaged the vendor outside statutory provisions, the committee agreed that the extra 20 per cent (GH¢3,160 on the GH¢15,800 valuation) would be funded directly from the Disability Common Fund — an amount almost enough to fully fund a start-up grant for one qualified person with disability.
The Backstory: How the Crisis Began
To understand the current deadlock, one must trace the controversy back to December 2025, when the Ada East District Assembly attempted a general disbursement of the 3 per cent District Assemblies Common Fund (DACF) reserved for Persons with Disabilities.
According to documents sighted by this portal, the statutory Disability Fund Management Committee (DFMC) — the multi-stakeholder body mandated by law to vet applications and oversee the fund — had vetted and approved 24 beneficiaries, resolving that they should receive direct cash grants to support micro-enterprises.
On the day of disbursement, beneficiaries arrived to discover the Assembly Administration had unilaterally cancelled the cash grants. Instead, an external commercial supplier was brought in to supply physical goods.
Per testimonies and valuations captured in the investigative report sighted by DisabilityNewsGH, the items delivered were unrelated to requests and grossly undervalued. Examples documented in the report include:
- A beneficiary approved for GH¢3,500 to expand a provisions enterprise was handed a dozen headgears (duku);
- A trader approved for GH¢3,000 trading capital was presented with three bags of fresh okra and onions valued by the committee at GH¢600;
- Another beneficiary approved for business expansion received three bags of poultry feed;
- Others received cartons of frozen fish described as rotten by beneficiaries, which they were forced to sell off for GH¢200 to prevent total loss.
Outraged by the arbitrary substitution, suspicious valuations and lack of consultation, the local disability community, under the leadership of the Ghana Federation of Disability Organisations (GFD), staged a boycott of the disbursement.
The boycott threw the Assembly into turmoil, compelling the General Assembly at its first ordinary sitting this year to institute an independent ad hoc committee to conduct a full-scale investigation.
It is the report of that committee — and a subsequent 20 per cent compromise reached with the administration — that has triggered the latest controversy.
Rewarding an Illegality: Violating National Disbursement Guidelines
The decision to compensate the vendor using PWD funds has provoked serious governance concerns.
Under the national disbursement guidelines issued by the Administrator of the District Assemblies Common Fund, no provision exists for contracting an external supplier or middleman to procure items for beneficiaries.
The statutory guidelines explicitly prescribe that where equipment or physical goods are to be procured, the purchases must be executed directly by a designated three-member team comprising two members of the Disability Fund Management Committee (DFMC) and the Assembly’s Procurement Officer.
By engaging an external contractor through an unlawful sole-sourcing arrangement, the administration breached national guidelines.
Rather than sanctioning this illegality, the committee has effectively rewarded the unauthorised vendor with a 20 per cent top-up from the public purse meant for the disabled poor.
The “No Impact” Defence and the Depleted Public Purse
In the interview, Hon. Philip Achia defended the decision, insisting that the extra 20 per cent payment to the supplier will not affect the monetary balances to be disbursed to the 24 affected persons with disabilities.
Attempts to get independent comment from the District Coordinating Director before press time were unsuccessful.
However, governance and disability analysts point out that this assertion ignores basic public finance realities:
1. A Depleted Collective Fund: The Disability Common Fund is a finite statutory grant. Using its liquidity to absorb the commercial losses of an unlawfully engaged middleman directly drains the account, depleting resources meant for subsequent batches of vulnerable citizens awaiting healthcare, educational grants, and assistive devices.
2. Rewarding Substandard Goods: According to the committee’s own findings, the supplier delivered items that were completely unrequested, severely undervalued, and decayed. Compensating such an operation sets a dangerous precedent of impunity.
Exonerating the Coordinating Director While Letting the Social Welfare Boss Off Lightly
Addressing administrative culpability, Hon. Achia disclosed why the Coordinating Director was cleared despite explosive testimonies.
While the District Social Welfare Director, Mr Enock Addy, claimed that the Coordinating Director personally directed him to procure items instead of issuing cash grants as approved by the Fund Management Committee, the Coordinating Director maintained that she only offered “professional advice” and never issued a directive.
Hon. Achia explained that because there was no documentary evidence — such as a written memo — to prove the order, the committee could not hold her legally accountable.
Curiously, despite establishing that Mr Addy bears full administrative culpability, the committee’s report contains no punitive or disciplinary sanctions against him.
It merely recommended that Mr Addy render a public apology to the disability community at a General Assembly sitting and through the media — a measure advocates have described as a mere slap on the wrist for an action that left 12 people with nothing and gave 12 others items they never requested.
Bypassing General Assembly debate: FMC given tight deadline
In another procedural departure, the final report will not be subjected to debate on the floor of the General Assembly.
Instead, the committee has resolved to transmit the document directly to the Fund Management Committee (FMC).
According to Hon. Achia, the decision was taken because the Assembly Administration cited the cost of convening an emergency meeting, saying it costs over GH¢30,000 to hold a General Assembly session.
But the disability community is raising questions: Did the General Assembly not consider the consequences of its decision to investigate the matter? And if cost was indeed an issue, why did the Administration not raise the concern on the day the decision was made, but allowed the committee to hold its first sitting — with a further probe even sanctioned by the General Assembly at its second sitting in July — before raising the cost issue with the committee alone, and not the full House?
They believe this is a clear attempt to prevent the House from debating the matter and possibly recommending sanctions against culpable officials.
Hon. Achia said the Fund Management Committee will finalise its report by early next week and organise a fresh disbursement within the same week.
The upcoming exercise will see fully approved cash sums handed to the 12 beneficiaries who received absolutely nothing in December — totaling GH¢36,500 — while the 12 who were saddled with substandard goods will receive cash top-ups totaling GH¢24,700.
Beneficiaries Reject Top-Up Logic
However, persons with disabilities in Ada East say they reject the committee’s recommendation for top-ups.
They argue that the committee cannot find that 10 out of 12 beneficiaries received items they never requested and that no lawful disbursement took place, and then treat the same items as partial disbursements deserving of top-ups.
“If the items were unrequested, they should be considered as gifts, not as disbursements against our Common Fund allocation,” a community representative told DisabilityNewsGH.
The community’s position aligns with the committee’s own finding that no disbursement took place, which formed the basis for its order for a fresh disbursement.
What remains unresolved is whether management will proceed to implement the recommendation to compensate the unlawfully engaged supplier with a 20 per cent top-up from the Disability Fund, and whether the District Assembly will apply any sanctions for the clear breach of the national Disability Fund disbursement guidelines.
SOURCE: DisabilityNewsGH.com
