Source: Peter Narteh-Agbeyome, Freelancer and STDA Member
Ghana’s decentralization project, as enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, was designed to bring governance closer to the people. At the foundation of this democratic structure lies the Unit Committee, a body often overlooked but central to grassroots development. Yet, a troubling practice has taken root across the country: the automatic appointment of the candidate with the highest votes as Chairman, commonly referred to as the Convener. This tradition, though widespread, is unconstitutional and undermines the principles of local governance. It violates the Local Governance Act, 2016 (Act 936), breaches L.I. 1967, and erodes the rule of law.
The origins of the Unit Committee highlight why its independence matters. In the early 1980s, under the PNDC era, Ghana relied on People’s Defence Committees and later Town and Village Development Committees, which were politically charged and operated as extensions of the central revolutionary authority. The 1992 Constitution sought to transform these bodies into non-partisan statutory institutions, ensuring that leadership was chosen through consensus rather than command. By reverting to the “highest vote” shortcut, the democratic right of the five elected members to deliberate and select their own leader is denied, effectively sliding back into a command-style governance model.
The law itself is clear. The Electoral Commission oversees the election of five Unit Committee members under C.I. 10. Once elected, they transition into a governing body under the Local Government (Urban, Zonal, and Town Councils and Unit Committees) (Establishment) Instrument, 2010 (L.I. 1967). Regulation 26 explicitly states that the committee must elect one of its members to preside at meetings. This creates a two-tier democratic process: first, the public elects representatives; second, those representatives elect their leader. By bypassing the second tier, District Assemblies are effectively rewriting the law, granting automatic leadership to the highest vote-getter without any legal basis.
The implications are serious. Every Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assembly operates under Model Standing Orders issued by the Ministry of Local Government, Decentralisation and Rural Development. A committee is not fully constituted until its leader is properly elected. Any decision presided over by a Chairman appointed through a vote count rather than an internal election risks being declared a procedural nullity. Communal projects, revenue reports, or local initiatives authorized under such leadership could be legally challenged, weakening the legitimacy of grassroots governance.
The constitutional argument is equally compelling. Article 240(2)(e) of the 1992 Constitution mandates that citizens must participate effectively in their governance. At the Assembly level, the Presiding Member is elected by a two-thirds majority, not automatically appointed based on popularity. Allowing the “highest vote” rule at the Unit Committee level creates a second-class democracy at the grassroots, undermining the very principles of participation and consensus that decentralization was meant to protect.
Beyond legality, the practice poses practical dangers. Popularity does not equate to competence. A candidate may win the highest votes due to philanthropy or local celebrity status but lack the literacy, administrative skills, or technical knowledge required to chair meetings and manage records. Forcing such individuals into leadership roles contributes to the widespread dormancy of Unit Committees, as other members may feel less accountable to a leader they did not choose, leading to friction and inactivity.
Reform is urgently needed. During the inauguration of Unit Committees, Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Chief Executives, along with Presiding Members, must ensure that a formal internal election is held as the first order of business. Civil society and the National Commission for Civic Education must also educate the public that winning the highest votes secures membership, not automatic chairmanship. Restoring the power of choice to Unit Committees is essential for strengthening democracy at the grassroots.
The persistence of this shortcut is not a minor procedural issue but a symptom of administrative lethargy that weakens Ghana’s democratic foundations. Elected members denied their right to vote for a Chairman have grounds to petition their Assemblies, invoking Regulation 26 of L.I. 1967 and demanding compliance with the law. Citizens, too, can pursue judicial review through the courts, seeking remedies such as certiorari to quash unconstitutional appointments or mandamus to compel Assemblies to conduct proper elections.
The Ministry of Local Government and the Electoral Commission must act decisively. A standardized inauguration protocol should be issued to all Assemblies, mandating that the election of a Convener or Chairman be conducted by secret ballot immediately after swearing-in. Without such reforms, the credibility of Unit Committees will remain compromised.
Ultimately, the Constitution belongs not to elites in Accra but to farmers in villages and traders in local markets. Allowing shortcuts at the grassroots rots the very roots of democracy. It is time to stop crowning chairmen and start electing them, as the law and Constitution intended. Only then will Unit Committees possess the legitimacy and authority to drive meaningful community development.
