African peer review: progress is being made but there are problems

This research paper evaluates the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), detailing its establishment in 2003 to improve governance through voluntary peer review. It describes a cycle of initial success, a period of decline between 2008 and 2016 characterized by leadership vacuums and financial mismanagement, and a recent phase of reinvigoration under the leadership of Professor Eddy Maloka and various African heads of state. While the mechanism has expanded its mandate to track Agenda 2063 and Sustainable Development Goals, the author argues that political reluctance to publish critical reports and a lack of high-level attendance continue to hinder its effectiveness.

• The peer review mechanism was established in 2003 following the transition of the Organisation of African Unity to the African Union (AU), designed as a voluntary, non-adversarial process to improve governance through self-assessment reports and expert reviews.
• The mechanism experienced a significant decline between 2008 and 2016, during which the secretariat lacked a permanent CEO, few reviews were conducted, and there were allegations of financial mismanagement. Notably, no states were reviewed between 2013 and 2016.
• Efforts to revive the mechanism began three years prior to the report's publication under the stewardship of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and CEO Professor Eddy Maloka, who implemented the "Three Rs Strategy": restoration, reinvigoration and renewal.
• In 2018, reforms by Rwandan President Paul Kagame incorporated the mechanism as a specialised agency of the continental body with an expanded mandate to track the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 for 38 members and other non-AU countries on the continent.
• Despite recent progress, the mechanism suffers from political reluctance to release reports and a lack of transparency. For example, the Senegal review is two years late, while second reviews for Sudan and Uganda are over a year late. Additionally, the African Governance Report avoids naming specific countries, indicating a reluctance to "name and shame" lagging states.

APA

South African Institute of International Affairs (2019). African peer review: progress is being made but there are problems. https://saiia.org.za/research/african-peer-review-progress-is-being-made-but-there-are-problems/

Chicago

South African Institute of International Affairs. African peer review: progress is being made but there are problems. 2019. https://saiia.org.za/research/african-peer-review-progress-is-being-made-but-there-are-problems/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=South African Institute of International Affairs |title=African peer review: progress is being made but there are problems |date=15 March 2019 |url=https://saiia.org.za/research/african-peer-review-progress-is-being-made-but-there-are-problems/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{southafricaninstituteofinternationalaffairs2019african, author = {{South African Institute of International Affairs}}, title = {{African peer review: progress is being made but there are problems}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2019}, month = mar, url = {https://saiia.org.za/research/african-peer-review-progress-is-being-made-but-there-are-problems/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }