The African Peer Review Mechanism at Country Level: Views from Kenya

The paper analyzes Kenya's experience with the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), noting that while the initial 2006 review was high-quality and well-supported, the subsequent implementation of the National Programme of Action (NPoA) failed due to a lack of political will, poor coordination with national development plans like 'Vision 2030', and competing governance initiatives. The author highlights the impact of the 2007 post-election violence and the role of the new constitution as a potential catalyst for revitalizing the APRM. Recommendations include strengthening the continental APR Secretariat, institutionalizing civil society monitoring, and learning from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) model of multi-stakeholder trust and capacity building.

• Kenya was an early adopter of the APRM, becoming the third African state to be peer reviewed in 2006. The initial Country Self-Assessment Report (CSAR) was praised for its "professionalism and credibility" and was described as a "forthright, high-quality and candid assessment of the country’s state of governance."
• The implementation of the National Programme of Action (NPoA) stalled because it was not integrated into Kenya's primary development blueprint, 'Vision 2030'. Despite sharing similar pillars (economic, social, and political), 'Vision 2030' made no reference to the APRM, and the political will to merge the two frameworks was lacking.
• The APRM lost political backing in Kenya partly due to internal government rifts. The process was perceived as a project of a coalition partner, Professor Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o, who was dismissed by President Kibaki after the 2005 constitutional referendum, leading the APRM to be seen as a project of the "ousted coalition partner".
• The 2007 post-election violence validated warnings in the Country Review Report (CRR) regarding ethnic tensions. While the CRR served as a reference for Kofi Annan's peace mission, the APRM itself did not return to national prominence following the crisis.
• Civil society engagement in the APRM was inconsistent. While strong during the initial review, it waned after the National Governing Council's mandate ended in December 2005. Monitoring and evaluation by civil society were not institutionalized, and many groups remained "not proactive with respect to the APRM".
• The author suggests that the APRM could learn from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), where civil society is represented on an "equal footing with government and companies" and benefits from dedicated capacity building and funding through organizations like Publish What You Pay (PWYP).

APA

Reitmaier, A. (2011). The African Peer Review Mechanism at Country Level: Views from Kenya. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Occasional-Paper-83.pdf

Chicago

Reitmaier, Angela. The African Peer Review Mechanism at Country Level: Views from Kenya. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2011. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Occasional-Paper-83.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Reitmaier |first1=Angela |title=The African Peer Review Mechanism at Country Level: Views from Kenya |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=May 2011 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Occasional-Paper-83.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{reitmaier2011african, author = {Reitmaier, Angela}, title = {{The African Peer Review Mechanism at Country Level: Views from Kenya}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2011}, month = may, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Occasional-Paper-83.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }