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

This policy briefing evaluates the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) in the context of the African Union's Agenda 2063 and the African Governance Architecture (AGA). While acknowledging the APRM's role in facilitating public debate on governance and its potential as a diagnostic tool, the authors argue that the mechanism has lost momentum due to inadequate political will, chronic funding shortages, and administrative instability. The document recommends a comprehensive revitalization of the APRM, including financial reforms, the appointment of a permanent CEO, and a shift in focus toward the implementation of National Programmes of Action (NPoAs).

• 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, producing Country Review Reports (CRRs) for each, and has provided a unique platform for citizens to engage with officials on governance issues.
• The APRM has suffered a loss of momentum, evidenced by the fact that no Country Review Reports have been produced since early 2013. There are also significant concerns that the National Programmes of Action (NPoAs), which are intended to address governance shortcomings identified in the reviews, are not being implemented.
• Administrative instability has plagued the APRM secretariat, which lacked a permanently appointed chief executive officer (CEO) from 2008 until January 2015, when a candidate was appointed but subsequently declined the office. This instability has hindered the secretariat's ability to make binding long-term decisions.
• The APRM faces a severe financial crisis characterized by a lack of predictable funding and failure of member states to pay subscriptions. In 2013, total collections were $2.7 million, only a third of the $7 million budgeted expenditure. Only nine of the 33 participating states made contributions in 2013, and three countries, including Liberia, had made no contributions since acceding.
• Political tensions have emerged as the thoroughness of the APRM's reviews alienated some governments. This is reflected in the creation of the Committee of Focal Points (CFP) in 2012, which shifted some authority away from the Panel of Eminent Persons, an action interpreted by some as an attempt to 'tame' the mechanism.
• To ensure future viability, the APRM needs to reform its funding model, potentially introducing a differentiated subscription structure based on GDP and GDP per capita. It also aims to establish a 'knowledge hub' to share data and research for evidence-based policymaking.

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} }