Making the News: Why the African Peer Review Mechanism Didn’t

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) failed to spark a national conversation in South Africa due to the government's determination to dominate the process and a systemic failure to engage the media. The author argues that the review process was centralised within the office of Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, which marginalised civil society and led to a Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) that reflected government views rather than a broad public consensus. While the Sunday Times provided consistent coverage, it faced hostility from the government when reporting on the findings of the Eminent Persons Panel, which contradicted official narratives on issues like crime and child safety. The paper concludes that for the APRM to be an effective vehicle for policy development, it requires greater transparency, a separation of the Focal Point and National Governing Council (NGC) chair roles, and a responsive media strategy from the APRM Secretariat.

• The APRM failed to create a national dialogue in South Africa because the government sought to control the process, ignoring the media and limiting civil society input during its design.
• The review process in South Africa was centralised in the office of Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, ensuring the Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) was heavily influenced by government perspectives.
• The APRM framework contains a significant gap by not requiring the involvement of the media in preparing the CSAR and omitting media freedom from its domestic review questionnaires.
• The Sunday Times was the only major media outlet to maintain consistent coverage, but it faced accusations of spreading 'scurrilous lies' from Minister Fraser-Moleketi after publishing draft reports that highlighted government failings in crime and child safety.
• The APRM's Continental Secretariat in Midrand, South Africa, was unresponsive and failed to provide necessary information or facilitate contact with the Panel of Eminent Persons.
• Transparency was undermined by the National Governing Council (NGC) holding closed meetings and the government's hostility toward NGOs and civil society members who shared information with the press.

APA

Boyle, B. (2008). Making the News: Why the African Peer Review Mechanism Didn’t. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Occasional-Paper-12.pdf

Chicago

Boyle, Brendan. Making the News: Why the African Peer Review Mechanism Didn’t. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Occasional-Paper-12.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Boyle |first1=Brendan |title=Making the News: Why the African Peer Review Mechanism Didn’t |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=September 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Occasional-Paper-12.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{boyle2008making, author = {Boyle, Brendan}, title = {{Making the News: Why the African Peer Review Mechanism Didn’t}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = sep, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Occasional-Paper-12.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }