The African Peer Review Mechanism A compilation of studies of the process in nine African countries AN OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS PUBLICATION Copyright © 2010 Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa ISBN: 978-1-920355-51-7 Original report published as: Date of publication The APRM in Algeria: A critical assessment July 2009 Benin and the African Peer Review Mechanism: Consolidating democratic achievements July 2008 The APRM Process in Burkina Faso January 2009 Ghana and the APRM: A critical assessment June 2007 The APRM Process in Kenya: A pathway to a new state? March 2007 The African Peer Review Mechanism in Mauritius: Lessons from Phase 1 June 2008 The African Peer Review Process in Nigeria July 2008 Critical Review of the African Peer Review Process in Rwanda January 2007 The APRM Process in South Africa March 2010 Published by Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) PO Box 678 Wits Johannesburg 2050 South Africa +27 11 587 5000 [email protected] www.osisa.org Designed and produced by Compress.dsl www.compressdsl.com CONTENTS Preface vii The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) 1 Summary of findings from the country studies Ozias Tungwarara 7 Algeria Mouloud Boumghar 23 Summary 23 APRM timeline in Algeria 25 APRM implementation in Algeria 28 Review of the problems and shortcomings of the process 56 Conclusions and recommendations 75 Sources for the Algeria study 78 Benin Gilles Badet 79 Summary 79 Implementation of the APRM in Benin 80 Review report for Benin 97 Financing the process 100 Evaluation, problems and shortcomings of the process 101 Final comments and recommendations 106 Sources for the Benin study 108 Burkina Faso Julien K. Natielsé 111 Summary 111 Implementing the APRM in Burkina Faso: Major steps in the process 113 Financing of the APRM process in Burkina Faso 132 Civil society participation 133 Submission of the Burkina Faso review report 134 Critical evaluation of the APRM process in Burkina Faso 135 Conclusion and recommendations 139 Sources for the Burkina Faso study 141 iii THE APRM: A COMPILATION OF STUDIES OF THE PROCESS IN NINE AFRICAN COUNTRIES Ghana Adotey Bing-Pappoe 143 SummarySummary 1431 APRM timeline in Ghana 150 Implementing the APRM in Ghana: The process 151 The APRM in Ghana: Issues around civil society involvement 169 Closing comments on the APRM in Ghana and Africa 180 Sources for the Ghana study 183 Kenya Steve Ouma Akoth 187 Summary 187 Implementing the APRM in Kenya 190 Critical assessment of the APRM process and the Kenya Report 206 Conclusion: The way forward for civil society organisations 210 Annexes for the Kenya study 213 Mauritius Sheila Bunwaree 221 Introduction 221 Country background 222 The APRM process in Mauritius 224 APRM timeline in Mauritius 234 Evaluation of the APRM process 235 Conclusions and recommendations 241 Annexes for the Mauritius study 244 Nigeria L. Adele Jinadu 249 Summary 249 The political context 251 Nigeria’s national APRM coordinating structure 252 Implementation of the APRM in Nigeria: Process and methodology 259 Funding the APRM coordinating structure and process 275 An overview of the country self-assessment report and national programme of action 276 Critical evaluation of the APRM process in Nigeria: Trends, challenges and opportunities 280 Conclusion 291 Sources for the Nigeria study 294 iv CONTENTS Rwanda Ligue des droits de la personne dans la région des Grands Lacs 295 Introduction: The APRM, a NEPAD programme 295 The implementation of the APRM in Rwanda 295 Non-governmental sector participation in the APRM process 306 General assessment of the APRM process in Rwanda 310 Conclusion and recommendations 316 Annexes for the Rwanda study 317 South Africa Nobuntu Mbelle 321 Summary 321 The implementation of the APRM process in South Africa 325 The country self-assessment process 330 Overview of the country self-assessment report 340 Country review mission and report 343 The APRM in South Africa since the completion of the review process 348 Critical evaluation of the APRM process in South Africa 351 Conclusion 356 Sources for the South Africa study 358 About the authors 361 v Preface This publication is a compilation of reviews of the implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) commissioned by AfriMAP in the countries that have undertaken the exercise. Nine reviews have been published since 2007 (published here) and three are near completion (Mali, Mozambique and Uganda); other reviews are planned. The reviews identify challenges that all stakeholders involved in reforming the APRM should be aware off and commit to resolving. Our aim is to assist in strengthening the APRM process both at continental and national levels. When the APRM was launched in 2003 it was met with mixed reactions. There were those that applauded it as part of far reaching efforts to improve governance in Africa. There were others who were sceptical about its effect on governance processes and institutions in Africa. Seven years after its launch, the same perceptions remain. To overcome them, proposed reforms to the APRM should take into account a number of lessons learnt from countries that have undertaken the review. The hope remains that most, if not all, African Union (AU) member states will eventually sign up to the APRM in order to concretize the many commitments that have been made aimed at accelerating Africa’s development through deeper integration. Implementation of the APRM has shown that it provides a real opportunity for national dialogue about governance. However, the quality of dialogue and nature of participation by broader segments of the populace depend on the independence of the process; which in turn depends on the institutional arrangements that governments put in place, as well as the extent to which governments are willing to exert less control and influence over the process. The reviews show that the APRM is a highly contested political process. There are a number of countries where management of the process was concentrated in a government institution, which gave the impression that government was more concerned about going through the motions of a review without facilitating adequate and genuine public participation. Nevertheless, there were also several countries whose governments demonstrated strong political will to enable genuine participation of non-state actors by including them in the APRM structures and review processes. The drafters of the APRM base documents and guidelines clearly intended the APRM to be inclusive and participatory. In implementing the APRM, member states should adhere to those practices that promote popular vii THE APRM: A COMPILATION OF STUDIES OF THE PROCESS IN NINE AFRICAN COUNTRIES participation in the process. In this regard, awareness creation, access to information, time-frames, and resources become critical elements of the process. Yet evidence shows that the architecture of APRM institutions and its methods of managing the process at national level is and will continue to be shaped by the country’s socio-political and economic realities as well as historical experiences. Governments in countries preoccupied with consolidating a ‘cohesive’ nation state tend to be more controlling; countries where there is greater demand for democratic space tend to allow greater civil society involvement. The complexity of the APRM as a technical process therefore, cannot be doubted. The challenges that member states faced in adapting and administering the APRM questionnaire affected the quality of country self-assessment reports. As the reviews indicate, there were several instances where respondents could not answer some questions because of their complexity. Current revisions to the questionnaire will address some of the problems that have been identified. There is, however, a critical need to significantly increase the continental APRM Secretariat’s capacity so that it provides timely guidance and advice to member states that are implementing the peer review process. Doubts about the utility of the APRM are being fuelled by the apparent lack of integration of the plan of action (PoA) into other national planning processes. For the PoAs to be relevant to national planning, they need to focus on governance gaps rather than become a laundry list of a country’s development needs. There does not seem to be clear guidance about the need to maintain APRM structures after the completion of the first-round review. Several countries disbanded the APRM institutions that had been created to oversee the review process. This has resulted in lacklustre follow-up that continues to give credence to doubts by APRM sceptics about the impact of the APRM on the African continent. Civil society organisations need to be much more robust in monitoring implementation of the PoAs. This requires a set of skills for policy dialogue and policy-making. In addition to monitoring progress or lack thereof, civil society organisations should develop the necessary competence to formulate policy options on the basis of which they can engage government in policy dialogue. The APRM Forum in which heads of states have conversations about how they are governing their respective countries is a unique African creation. It has the potential for peer learning and influence that can move Africa towards deeper economic and political integration. The fervent hope for all stakeholders is that the APRM is not implemented on a cosmetic or even tokenistic basis, but that it is done to genuinely unblock governance logjams that are impeding Africa’s development. It is in this spirit that AfriMAP has conducted and will continue to review the APRM’s implementation and the extent to which it begins to have a positive impact on the lives of African citizens. AfriMAP acknowledges the authors who carried out research and compiled the review reports. We recognise the support provided by the Open Society viii PREFACE Foundations in Africa: the Open Society Initiative for Eastern Africa (OSIEA); the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA); the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) and the Open Society Foundation for South Africa (OSF-SA) — to carry out the research and launch the reports.