When Professor Kwamena Ahwoi speaks on local governance, Ghana listens.
As the longest-serving Minister of Local Government and a key architect of our decentralisation policy, his recent warning that Ghana has “too many districts” deserves serious attention.
His argument that the proliferation of districts has become counterproductive has reignited debate on whether the country’s decentralisation model still serves its original purpose.
Professor Ahwoi contends that many of the 261 Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs) are not viable and that several were created without meeting the population, infrastructure, and economic criteria laid down in the Local Government Acts 462 and 936.
In his view, political considerations rather than developmental logic have often guided the creation of new districts, undermining efficient planning and effective governance.
The result, he warns, is a network of assemblies that struggle to deliver, draining national resources without measurable returns.
Those who disagree with him, including some in Parliament, argue that decentralisation is not a luxury but a necessity.
They insist that creating new districts and regions brings governance closer to the people, widens participation, and promotes balanced development.
They cite the growth of new schools, clinics and administrative offices in areas previously neglected, and maintain that the process of creation has followed the law.
To them, the real challenge is not “too many districts” but insufficient funding and capacity for the ones we already have.
The Daily Graphic notes that both sides make compelling points and both, in truth, expose the same weakness, which is a system that has expanded faster than it has matured.
Around the world, experiences with decentralisation reveal a delicate balance.
In Kenya and Indonesia, new administrative units have deepened participation and improved service delivery, but only where those units were viable and properly funded.
In contrast, countries that expanded subnational governments without clear criteria have faced inefficiency, duplication, and fiscal strain.
The lesson is straightforward: decentralisation succeeds not by multiplying structures but by strengthening them.
The Daily Graphic does not see the challenge as whether decentralisation is good or bad; it is whether we are practising it in a way that will serve the interests of the nation and Ghanaians best.
If new districts are created for short-term political gain, the system will buckle under its own weight.
But if their creation is guided by solid data, legal thresholds, and economic reasoning, decentralisation can still deliver on its promise of inclusive development.
It is therefore about time the nation took stock of our local governance architecture.
A comprehensive audit of all existing MMDAs should be commissioned to measure each district’s performance—its service delivery, internally generated funds, infrastructure, and citizen engagement—against clear standards.
Second, the legal criteria for district and regional creation must be strictly enforced.
The threshold for population and economic viability cannot remain a formality; it must become a filter.
Third, before any new district is announced, a cost-benefit analysis must be conducted to weigh potential development gains against the administrative costs.
Equally important, existing districts must be strengthened. We note that many assemblies still lack the requisite personnel, adequate logistics, and the financial autonomy to plan and deliver.
Therefore, building their capacity, not multiplying their number, should be the priority.
Also, citizens must have greater oversight and participation in local governance.
Transparency, accountability, and community involvement are the surest ways to make local government responsive and credible.
Indeed, Prof. Ahwoi’s warning is not a call to abandon decentralisation; it is a call to do it better.
Ghana has invested heavily in local governance over the past three decades, and that effort must not go to waste.
But the nation cannot continue to expand administrative boundaries without asking whether they are working.
We must pause, evaluate, and rebuild strength where it matters most.
Taking stock is not an admission of failure.
It is rather an act of responsibility.
If we measure carefully and act decisively, Ghana can preserve the spirit of decentralisation while avoiding the trap of inefficiency.
Only then will our districts truly become engines of development, not symbols of duplication.
