Browse all documents

Lessons from Implementing the APRM National Programme of Action in Nigeria

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This policy briefing examines the implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) National Programme of Action (NPoA) in Nigeria. It identifies critical failures in monitoring, evaluation, and funding, while highlighting the decline of civil society engagement and the lack of legal standing for NEPAD Nigeria. The document provides lessons on the necessity of political will, communication, and technical capacity for the APRM to succeed as a governance tool.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Nigeria's National Programme of Action (NPoA) is characterized as the most ambitious in the APRM process to date, with an estimated cost of $20 billion for the 2009–2012 period and high complexity regarding implementation timelines and responsibilities.
  • The implementation of the NPoA in Nigeria has been hindered by structural and technical challenges, including limited manpower, poor organization of national structures, and a lack of communication tools to monitor implementing agencies.
  • NEPAD Nigeria lacks legal standing because it does not have an enabling law to establish it as a commission, which negatively impacts the federal government's ability to assign and disburse funding.
  • Political instability and a lack of consistent leadership interest have weakened the process; specifically, the death of President Yar’Adua in May 2010 caused internal strife, and subsequent leaders lacked the regional and continental influence of former President Obasanjo.
  • Civil society engagement, which was strong during the initial review stages, has diminished to the point of being practically non-existent during NPoA implementation. This decline is attributed to government dominance of the space and a lack of donor funding for monitoring.
  • The document identifies poor monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as a primary challenge for the APRM both in Nigeria and at the continental secretariat level, noting that without systematic M&E, the impact of the NPoA cannot be established.

Cite the original document

APA
Khalil-Babatunde, M. (2014). Lessons from Implementing the APRM National Programme of Action in Nigeria. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Policy-Briefing-120.pdf
Chicago
Khalil-Babatunde, Mouzayian. Lessons from Implementing the APRM National Programme of Action in Nigeria. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2014. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Policy-Briefing-120.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Khalil-Babatunde |first1=Mouzayian |title=Lessons from Implementing the APRM National Programme of Action in Nigeria |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=December 2014 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Policy-Briefing-120.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{khalilbabatunde2014lessons, author = {Khalil-Babatunde, Mouzayian}, title = {{Lessons from Implementing the APRM National Programme of Action in Nigeria}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2014}, month = dec, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Policy-Briefing-120.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated