The African Peer Review Mechanism

This report analyzes the implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) in four pioneer countries: Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, and South Africa. It examines the institutional structures, research methodologies, and political dynamics of each national process, highlighting the tension between government control and the need for independent civil society participation to ensure credible self-assessments and effective Programmes of Action.

• Ghana established a non-partisan National APRM Governing Council (NAPRM-GC) independent of government to prevent the peer review process from becoming a 'political football' during the December 2004 national elections.
• Ghana utilized a 'survey and think tank' model, commissioning four independent research organizations (Technical Review Institutes) to lead the four thematic areas of the APR, which helped pre-empt suspicions of government manipulation.
• The Ghanaian government made two significant political commitments to ensure the integrity of the Programme of Action: agreeing beforehand to accept the report's conclusions and pledging that the cabinet would not alter the recommendations once drafted.
• Kenya's APRM process was significantly delayed and paralyzed for months due to conflicts within the National Governing Council, specifically disputes over funding and the desire of some civil society members to secure personal or organizational gain.
• Kenya employed a rigorous four-instrument research methodology consisting of desk research, expert surveys, a national sample survey of approximately 2,000 households, and focus group discussions across 16 districts.
• The Rwandan APRM process was characterized by strong government dominance, with the National Commission consisting of 50 members, over 60% of whom were government officials, leading to concerns about the independence and credibility of the self-assessment.
• Rwanda's self-assessment was criticized for lacking forthrightness, particularly regarding cross-border conflicts in the DRC, the separation of powers, and the suppression of political opposition.
• Mauritius experienced a virtual stalemate in its APRM process due to a lack of political will, ineffective leadership by the National Economic and Social Council (NESC), and a change of government in May 2005.
• The Mauritian process failed largely because it treated the APRM as a clerical exercise of filling out a questionnaire rather than a national dialogue, resulting in a report dominated by government perspectives.
• South Africa's APRM process was marked by unrealistic timelines, with the government initially attempting to complete the self-assessment in two months, which led to superficial consultations and distrust from civil society.
• In South Africa, the conflation of the Focal Point, the National Governing Council, and the Secretariat—all led by a cabinet minister—undermined the independence of the process and created a conflict of interest.
• The South African government heavily edited the Country Self-Assessment Report after public validation at the Kliptown conference, removing or softening critical evidence and citations to present a more positive image.
• South Africa's use of Community Development Workers (CDWs) to gather public input was flawed due to non-standardized questionnaires, lack of translation for vernacular languages, and a failure to meaningfully incorporate the data into the final report.
• The South African Programme of Action was found to be deficient, failing to address 97 of the 182 formal recommendations made by the APR Panel of Eminent Persons.

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} }