SAIIA Roundtable: The African Peer Review Mechanism – Progress and Prospects

This research paper summarizes a February 2010 roundtable discussion hosted by the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) regarding the progress and future prospects of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The discussion, featuring representatives from the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the APRM Secretariat, and civil society, evaluates the mechanism's achievements in promoting governance and accountability across Africa while identifying systemic failures in implementation, funding, and leadership.

• The APRM has seen significant growth in participation, with 30 member states voluntarily acceding by 2010, representing 76% of the continent's population. Twelve countries—Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya, Algeria, South Africa, Benin, Nigeria, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mozambique, and Lesotho—have completed the full review cycle.
• Country Review Reports (CRRs) are regarded as credible and frank diagnostic tools that highlight cross-cutting governance challenges such as corruption, unemployment, and land disputes. However, the reports' warnings regarding potential stability threats in South Africa and Kenya were ignored by their respective governments.
• There is a significant gap between the completion of reviews and the implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs). Implementation is often ad hoc, lacks standardization in progress reporting, and is poorly integrated into national budgets, poverty reduction strategies, and development plans.
• The APRM faces institutional and leadership crises, characterized by 'signs of paralysis' at the continental level and a lack of transparency in selecting the Panel of Eminent Persons. In founder states like Nigeria and South Africa, the mechanism's political significance has diminished, with little discussion in parliament or the media.
• Civil society engagement is uneven; while robust at the national level, it is often missing at the continental level and is excluded from APRM Forum meetings. Some member states, including Zambia, Ethiopia, and Uganda, have restricted the legal operating space for civil society organizations.
• The APRM Secretariat has struggled with institutional maturity, taking seven years to sign a hosting agreement. To address this, a 2009 'fast-track and streamline' project was launched to revise the Self-Assessment Questionnaire, improve NPoA monitoring, and update rules and procedures.
• The mechanism rejected a proposal to categorize states into high performers, middle rankers, and post-conflict/fragile states because such classification was deemed politically unacceptable and contrary to the African Union's goal of continental unification.

APA

Gruzd, S. (2010). SAIIA Roundtable: The African Peer Review Mechanism – Progress and Prospects. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Occasional-Paper-59.pdf

Chicago

Gruzd, Steven. SAIIA Roundtable: The African Peer Review Mechanism – Progress and Prospects. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2010. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Occasional-Paper-59.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Gruzd |first1=Steven |title=SAIIA Roundtable: The African Peer Review Mechanism – Progress and Prospects |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=April 2010 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Occasional-Paper-59.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{gruzd2010saiia, author = {Gruzd, Steven}, title = {{SAIIA Roundtable: The African Peer Review Mechanism – Progress and Prospects}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2010}, month = apr, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Occasional-Paper-59.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }