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

This research paper by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) details the efforts of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) to influence South Africa's self-assessment under the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The document describes the challenges ODAC faced due to government control over the process, the strategic use of parliamentary committees and technical agencies to ensure their concerns regarding access to information and whistleblower protection were heard, and the eventual inclusion of these issues in the final Plan of Action.

• The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) focused its advocacy within the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) on two primary goals: improving public access to information from government and businesses, and strengthening legal protections for whistleblowers who expose institutional corruption.
• The South African government was perceived as attempting to control the APRM process, which included the systematic exclusion of policy-specialized NGOs and the creation of a National Governance Council (NGC) with heavy government representation. The NGC was chaired by the Minister of Public Service and Administration and included five ministers, which contradicted the APRM principle that the process should not be a government project.
• 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 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 avoid reporting fraud or corruption.
• While the South African Parliament's ad hoc committees were generally receptive to ODAC's proposals, the final National Self-Assessment Report (NSAR) and the preliminary Plan of Action (PA) initially omitted or minimized the recommendations regarding information access and whistleblower protection.
• The final, binding Plan of Action (PA) eventually included the issues of information access and whistleblower protection, including a commitment to a "Know Your Rights" campaign and the strengthening of whistleblower protection legislation as a measurable indicator, though it failed to address the specific application and compliance issues of the PAIA.

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} }