The African Peer Review Mechanism

The report examines the early experiences of five African nations implementing the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). It highlights a tension between government-led processes and the need for independent civil society oversight to ensure candid self-assessments. While Ghana is praised for its independent governing council and robust research, Kenya's experience warns of civil society fragmentation and personal gain. Rwanda's process is noted for being heavily government-driven in a restrictive political climate, and Mauritius is presented as a case of failure due to a lack of political will and institutional capacity. South Africa's process is critiqued for unrealistic timelines and government attempts to sanitize findings, though it is noted for its extensive use of the internet and indigenous languages for outreach.

• Ghana utilized a 'survey and think tank' model, commissioning four independent research organizations to lead the technical review of the four APRM thematic areas.
• Kenya's APRM process was significantly delayed by conflicts within its National Governing Council, where some civil society members were accused of using the mechanism for personal financial gain.
• Kenya's research methodology was considered high quality, employing a combination of desk research, expert surveys, a national sample survey of approximately 2,000 households, and 128 focus group discussions.
• Rwanda's APRM process was characterized by strong government dominance, with the National Commission consisting of 50 members, over 60% of whom were government officials.
• In Rwanda, a climate of fear and the government's sensitivity to criticism led participants to be reluctant to voice true opinions in public forums, preferring anonymous written submissions.
• The APRM process in Mauritius effectively stalled due to a lack of political will, institutional dysfunction within the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), and a change in government in May 2005.
• Mauritius failed to engage civil society effectively, treating the APRM as a bureaucratic exercise of filling out a questionnaire rather than a national dialogue.
• South Africa's APRM process was marked by unrealistic timelines, with the government initially attempting to complete the self-assessment in two months, leading to superficial consultations.
• The South African government heavily edited the draft Country Self-Assessment Report after public validation at Kliptown, removing or softening critical evidence on corruption and judicial independence.
• South Africa's use of Community Development Workers (CDWs) to gather public input was flawed due to non-standardized questionnaires, lack of translation, and poor data processing.

APA

Herbert, R., & Gruzd, S. (2008). The African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part4_20090219.pdf

Chicago

Herbert, Ross, and Steven Gruzd. The African Peer Review Mechanism. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part4_20090219.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Herbert |first1=Ross |last2=Gruzd |first2=Steven |title=The African Peer Review Mechanism |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=February 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part4_20090219.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{herbert2008african, author = {Herbert, Ross and Gruzd, Steven}, title = {{The African Peer Review Mechanism}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = feb, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/aprm_pioneers_part4_20090219.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }