Assessing South Africa’s APRM: An NGO Perspective

The document details the efforts of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to influence South Africa's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process between 2004 and 2008. It argues that the South African government attempted to control the process by excluding specialist NGOs, staffing the National Governing Council (NGC) with government officials, and conducting final drafting of the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) and Programme of Action (POA) behind closed doors. Despite these obstacles, ODAC successfully lobbied for the inclusion of access to information and whistleblower protection in the final binding POA, although the authors note that many of their specific detailed recommendations were omitted.

• The South African government's National Governing Council (NGC) was heavily dominated by government officials, which contradicted the APRM's goal of being an autonomous body inclusive of all stakeholders. The council was chaired by the Minister of Public Service and Administration and included five senior ministers, while many specialist policy NGOs and civil society groups were initially excluded.
• The government's management of the APRM process lacked transparency, specifically regarding the drafting of the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) and the Programme of Action (POA). Final drafting occurred without public participation, and the government initially refused to disclose the revised POA, claiming it was not 'prudent' to do so.
• ODAC identified significant failures in the implementation of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), noting that 70% of oral requests for information could not be submitted and between 52% and 62% of requests received no response at all.
• The Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) was found to be inadequate in protecting whistleblowers from occupational detriment. Evidence showed that employees were often too scared to report fraud and corruption due to fear of consequences at work.
• Despite government attempts to exclude their input, ODAC's persistence resulted in the final binding Programme of Action (POA) addressing both access to information and whistleblower protection, including a 'Know Your Rights' campaign and a call for a review of the Protected Disclosures Act.

APA

Hutchings, N., Dimba, M., & Tilley, A. (2008). Assessing South Africa’s APRM: An NGO Perspective. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3.pdf

Chicago

Hutchings, Nick, Mukelani Dimba, and Alison Tilley. Assessing South Africa’s APRM: An NGO Perspective. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hutchings |first1=Nick |last2=Dimba |first2=Mukelani |last3=Tilley |first3=Alison |title=Assessing South Africa’s APRM: An NGO Perspective |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hutchings2008assessing, author = {Hutchings, Nick and Dimba, Mukelani and Tilley, Alison}, title = {{Assessing South Africa’s APRM: An NGO Perspective}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }