A Good Governance Driver: Is the African Peer Review Mechanism Up to It?

The document evaluates the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), noting that while it has successfully provided a platform for citizen engagement and reviewed 17 countries, it is currently 'under stress'. The authors identify critical failures in leadership, funding, and political will, specifically noting that no Country Review Reports have been produced since early 2013. To remain relevant to Agenda 2063, the APRM must reform its administrative structure, establish a 'knowledge hub', and implement a more sustainable funding model based on GDP to ensure its autonomy and effectiveness.

• The APRM has achieved significant reach since 2003, with 35 of the African Union's 54 member states acceding to the mechanism, representing 80% of the continent's population. It has completed reviews for 17 countries, creating a unique platform for citizens to engage with officials on governance.
• The mechanism is currently experiencing a loss of momentum, evidenced by the fact that no Country Review Reports (CRRs) have been issued since early 2013 and National Programmes of Action (NPoAs) are frequently not implemented.
• Severe administrative instability has plagued the APRM secretariat, which lacked a permanently appointed chief executive officer (CEO) from 2008 until a January 2015 appointment that the candidate later declined.
• The APRM faces a critical funding deficit; in 2013, total collections were $2.7 million, which was only one-third of the $7 million budgeted expenditure. Many states fail to pay the $100,000 annual subscription, including Liberia while its president chaired the APRM Forum of Heads of State and Government.
• There is a perceived effort to 'tame' the mechanism through the 2012 creation of the Committee of Focal Points (CFP), which shifted authority away from the more independent Panel of Eminent Persons.
• To ensure financial sustainability, the authors recommend a differentiated subscription structure based on a combination of overall gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP per capita.

APA

Corrigan, T., & Turianskyi, Y. (2015). A Good Governance Driver: Is the African Peer Review Mechanism Up to It? South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Policy-Briefing-140.pdf

Chicago

Corrigan, Terence, and Yarik Turianskyi. A Good Governance Driver: Is the African Peer Review Mechanism Up to It? South African Institute of International Affairs, 2015. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Policy-Briefing-140.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Corrigan |first1=Terence |last2=Turianskyi |first2=Yarik |title=A Good Governance Driver: Is the African Peer Review Mechanism Up to It? |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=July 2015 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Policy-Briefing-140.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{corrigan2015good, author = {Corrigan, Terence and Turianskyi, Yarik}, title = {{A Good Governance Driver: Is the African Peer Review Mechanism Up to It?}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2015}, month = jul, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Policy-Briefing-140.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }