Articles

The APRM Secretariat

The Panel of Eminent Persons is supported by a Secretariat, based in Midroad, South Africa which, with its approval, shall engage the services of competent and appropriate African experts and institutions to be its agents in the peer review processes. The Secretariat is also required to build and maintain an extensive database on political and economic developments in all participating countries, prepare background documents for the Peer Review Teams, propose performance indicators and track the performance of individual countries.  

The Four Types of Review:      

1. The first Country Review - the base review carried out within 18 months of a country     acceding to the APRM Process;     

2. A Periodic Review carried out every two to four years;     

3. A non-mandatory review that, for its own reasons, a member  is entitled to request;      

4. A review requested by a head of state or government in the event of early signs of political     or economic crisis in his/her     country. 

The APRM process calls for periodic reviews of the policies and practices of participating countries, so that it can be determined what progress they are making in the agreed goals, as well as how they are complying with the agreed political, economic and corporate governance values, codes and standards. 

It is envisaged that through the peer review process participating nations will be encouraged to consider how their domestic policies impact not only on their own internal stability and growth, but also on those of neighbouring countries.As African countries are at varying levels of development, each is assessed on joining the Mechanism (the Base Review).  The participating nation is then required to draw up a timetable (the Programme of Action) for achieving the agreed goals and standards. 

The Five Stages of Peer Review

Stage 1 :  This is a study of the participating country's political, economic and corporate governance and development environment, based mainly on current documentation prepared by the APRM Secretariat and on material provided by national, sub-regional, regional and international institutions.  

Stage 2:  The Review Team visits the country to carry out consultations with the government, officials, political parties, Members of Parliament and representatives of civil society organisations, including the media, trade unions, academia, business, professional bodies, etc. 

Stage 3:  The Review Team prepares its report based on the briefing material prepared by the APRM Secretariat and the information gathered from official and unofficial sources during the consultations mentioned in Stage 2. 

The Review Team's Draft Report is first discussed with the government concerned, to ensure the accuracy of the information it contains, to enable the government to react to the findings and suggest how the shortcomings identified can be addressed. The government's reactions are to be appended to the report.  Where the Review Team identifies problems, it is to state clearly in its report whether the government concerned is willing to take the necessary corrective decisions and measures, what resources are required, how much of it the government is prepared to contribute and how much will be needed from external sources, and how long will it take to put the problem right. 

Stage 4:  This begins when the final report of the Review Team is submitted to the Participating Heads of State and Government, through the APRM Secretariat, and ends when they have considered and taken a decision on it. 

When the government of a country that has been reviewed shows a willingness to rectify the shortcomings identified, the other participating states shall do everything they can to assist it, including urging donor governments and agencies to provide assistance. If there is a lack of the necessary political will, the other participating states shall first endeavour to engage the government in constructive dialogue, offering technical and other necessary assistance. If that fails, then the participating governments may, in the last resort, notify the government of their intention to take appropriate measures by a given date.  The interval should provide the government with an opportunity to address the shortcomings. 

Duration of the Peer Review Process
The duration of any peer review process - from inception to report submission to the Heads of State and Government - shall not exceed six months.

Stage 5: Six months after a country report has been considered by the Heads of State and Government, it shall be formally and publicly tabled at key regional and sub-regional organisations such as the Pan-African Parliament, the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, the Peace and Security Council and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council. 

Funding the APRM
The APRM is to be funded from assessed contributions from participating member states. 

Review of the APRM
The Conference of the participating states will review the APRM every five years, as a way of enhancing its dynamism.       [back]

read more >>