Evaluer le MAEP en Afrique du Sud : Depuis une perspective d’ONG

The report details the struggle of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to integrate transparency and anti-corruption safeguards into South Africa's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process. Despite facing government attempts to control the process and exclude specialized NGOs, ODAC successfully lobbied for the inclusion of access to information and whistleblower protection in the final Plan of Action (PA). The document highlights systemic issues in the South African process, including the over-representation of government officials in the National Governance Council and the opaque nature of final document revisions.

• The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) focused its advocacy on two primary safeguards against high-level corruption: improving public access to information from government and businesses, and strengthening legal protections for whistleblowers.
• The South African government attempted to control the APRM process by excluding specialized policy NGOs and over-representing government officials in the National Governance Council (CNG). The CNG was chaired by the Minister of Public Service and Administration and included five ministers, which contradicted the APRM principle that the government should not lead a program in which it is being evaluated.
• ODAC's monitoring studies revealed 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 filed and between 52% and 62% of information requests received no response.
• The Protected Disclosures Act (PDA) was found to be inadequate in protecting whistleblowers from professional prejudice, leading many employees to fear retaliation and refrain from reporting corruption.
• The final National Self-Assessment Report (RNAE) and the preliminary Plan of Action (PA) initially omitted or significantly reduced the recommendations regarding access to information and whistleblower protection, despite these issues being recognized in preliminary versions and by the National Evaluation Mission.
• Through persistence and legal pressure, ODAC succeeded in having its core concerns included in the final, binding Plan of Action, which now includes a 'Know Your Rights' campaign and the strengthening of whistleblower protection legislation as a measurable indicator.

APA

Hutchings, N., Dimba, M., & Tilley, A. (2008). Evaluer le MAEP en Afrique du Sud : Depuis une perspective d’ONG. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3-FR.pdf

Chicago

Hutchings, Nick, Mukelani Dimba, and Alison Tilley. Evaluer le MAEP en Afrique du Sud : Depuis une perspective d’ONG. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3-FR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hutchings |first1=Nick |last2=Dimba |first2=Mukelani |last3=Tilley |first3=Alison |title=Evaluer le MAEP en Afrique du Sud : Depuis une perspective d’ONG |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=June 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3-FR.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hutchings2008evaluer, author = {Hutchings, Nick and Dimba, Mukelani and Tilley, Alison}, title = {{Evaluer le MAEP en Afrique du Sud : Depuis une perspective d’ONG}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/Occasional-Paper-3-FR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }