How African Leaders Conspire To Weaken Peer Review Process

BY encouraging a number of factors diminishing the effectiveness of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), African leaders may have conspired to render prostrate the process established to encourage accountability, good governance and economic development. This is even as the APRM Forum of Heads of States and Governments, meeting on the sidelines of the 26th African Union (AU) summit, failed to come up with firm commitments to reverse the downward slope.

Since 2003 when it was established in Abuja, through the efforts of then Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Thabo Mbeki, only 17 out of the 35 member-states have so far submitted themselves to be reviewed, while none has gone through the crucial second review.

However, with the APRM Forum of Heads of State and Government’s approval on Friday of Dr. Edward Maloka as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the process, one of the most worrisome challenges facing APRM may have been addressed. The secretariat, based in Midrand, South Africa, has been without a CEO since 2008, with strings of interim leaders and many vacancies begging to be filled. But of the 35 member-states, only nine have paid the USD100, 000 annual subscription fees. Also, the body has not published a country review report since 2013, when Zambia and Tanzania went through the process.

Last year’s review mission to Djibouti was stalled because of paucity of fund. And in a manner suggesting serious case of waning political will, the 2015 Extraordinary meeting of the APRM Forum of Heads of State and Government, scheduled for Nairobi in Kenya, was abruptly cancelled by the Chairperson of the Forum and host, President Uhuru Kenyatta.

Current data from the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) has not been cheerful. For the first time since the IIAG report was compiled for all African countries in 2007, the indicators did not show any improvement towards Africa’s political, economic and developmental goals. This must have prompted philanthropist, Mr. Mo Ibrahim, to suggest that accountability and good governance no longer feature prominently in the minds of African leaders. A view re-echoed by Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn at the recently concluded World Economic Forum in Davos, where he stated: “We can’t hide the fact that there is a big problem in good governance in Africa.”

The objective of the APRM is to promote the adoption of policies, standards and best practices that enhance political stability, economic growth and sustainable development. But generally, the mechanism seems to be drifting, with little innovation or energy, according to the Head of Programme (APRM) of the South Africa International Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), Mr. Steven Gruzd, who spoke with The Guardian, during one of the lead-up events of the AU Summit, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Also, the APRM organs are not transparent on how funds are utilised, as annual report only shows income, but silent on expenditure.

“The first challenge facing the APRM is awareness and information. Too few African citizens have even heard about the APRM, let alone understand what it is and what it is trying to achieve –– good governance. It has not been very well promoted or publicised, at national and continental level.

“The second is political commitment and leadership. The current crops of African leaders are not as enthusiastic or supportive as were the Obasanjos and Mbekis of the previous decades,” Gruzd said.

The implication of a weakened secretariat is that big decisions and reforms can’t be undertaken. The secretariat is chronically short staffed, especially as it deals with 35 member countries with just a handful of researchers and coordinators.

Providing insight into the dilemma of the review process, Gruzd pointed out that the biggest challenge facing it is financial. According to him, “Countries have not been paying their $100,000 annual fees, and this hamstrings the mechanism. Some have never paid. They rely on extra funds from South Africa and Nigeria mostly. They had to postpone the Djibouti Country Review Mission in 2015 due to lack of money. The UNDP (United Nations Developmental Programme) has bailed them out on Djibouti. Also, donor support, which was strong at the beginning, has almost completely dried up. The only donors now are the Swiss and UNDP itself.” The mechanism does not get funds directly, but access them from a pool of UNDP basket.

By truncating last year’s opportunity of addressing the challenges facing the process, African leaders underscored their growing disdain for the APRM. Beyond the Kenyan government explanations that the Nairobi’s Extraordinary Summit of the APR Forum of Heads of States and Governments was postponed due to a pressing engagement in Italy involving President Kenyatta, it was gathered that the President was in Kenya all through the week the meeting was scheduled. Kenyatta’s decision to cancel the meeting might have been informed, in part, by the lukewarm responses he got from member countries. Cote d’Ivoire, the 35th member-state, didn’t ascend to the process until January 2015. At least 19 African countries are still to ascend the voluntary mechanism. There have been talks of compelling all 54 AU-member countries to join the process, in order to raise the level of good governance throughout the continent.

Nonetheless, the sudden cancellation raised serious concerns about the future of this important homegrown African governance and accountability tool. The meeting was expected to address critical challenges facing the process, including funding, leadership and waning political will, but the Summit was aborted just four days before it was meant to start.

Many were uncomforted by the postponement until January 29, 2016, and relocation to Addis Ababa, where regular APRM Forum meetings happen on the margin of the AU Summit every year, purportedly to allow non-APRM countries to participate. They may have been vindicated by events of Friday, when the Forum failed to come up with definite policy statement re-energising the mechanism.

On Friday, when he opened a special summit of the committee of Heads of State and Government participating in the APRM, Kenyatta called for the strengthening of APRM’s linkage with regional economic blocs and NEPAD programmes.

The chairperson said APRM would become more relevant when linked to the implementation of frameworks such as the AU’s Agenda 2063 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Agenda 2030.
It would be recalled that the APRM last year announced Prof. Olukoshi Adebayo as the new CEO, but the former Director, United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (UNIDEP) repudiated the engagement, alleging that he was not informed before the announcement. The Guardian gathered that while Adebayo attended screening for the job, the engagement fell flat due to disagreement on personal terms and conditions. Stakeholders are hopeful that Maloka’s announcement would not attract the same unfortunate path.
While the high point of the process was the successful prediction of the 2007 ethnic-motivated election violence in Kenya, the South African review was said to be controversial as it spotlighted many issues the government was trying to shield from the people. However, the Algerian process was allegedly too government heavy, just as the Nigerian review was purportedly politicized. “The change from the Obasanjo-led administration to Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan-led administrations slowed everything down in the Nigerian case. Many observers agree the Nigerian report highlighted the big governance gaps in the country,” Gruzd said. The onus is now on the President Muhammadu Buhari-led government to turn things around in the review mechanism, especially against the change mantra of the administration.
“President Buhari is increasingly popular with his government’s anti-corruption crusade and commitment to good governance and accountability. There is growing optimism within the APRM stakeholders that the President would extend this strong will to the process in particular, and Africa in general,” Mr. Grant Masterson told The Guardian during a chat. Grant is Programme manager at the Electoral Institute for sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA).

Expecting President Buhari to fully get behind APRM system, and play a leadership role, especially in West Africa and through ECOWAS, Gruzd urged Nigeria to pay above its minimum subscription, since it can clearly afford to do so. “President Buhari should also make sure the next review of Nigeria is transparent, credible and visibly free of manipulation. The President can help restore faith in the APRM. He can publicly support and endorse the process,” he said.

So far, Nigeria has committed at least $4.35 million since 2003. In contrast, however, South Africa is the major contributor to the process with a sum of $9.76m within same period. Algeria has contributed $2.5m, while Egypt made contribution of $1.3m so far.

However, the point is that if every member-state pays its minimum $100,000, amounting to $3.5 million per annum, that would be sufficient to operate the secretariat. But many member-states have never paid. They include, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Mauritania, Sao Tome and Tunisia.

By 2014, nine countries paid about $2.72 million, but with over $1m paid by Uganda and Rwanda in monies owed the APRM, others merely came up with $1.72m.

“Financial contributions necessary to ensure Africa’s ownership of the process have dwindled, as have contributions from strategic partners,” Kenyatta said.

While perception of conspiracy by African leaders to kill the process appears distant, there is no doubt that they have not been bold enough in supporting the process. “APRM has been much more frank and critical than anyone expected. So some may fear it and want it to remain in the current state of weakness. But I cannot point to deliberate sabotage. But they are not paying their fees regularly, which must tell you something,” Gruzd said.

African leaders may have to go beyond inconsequential declarations that, at best, only gloss over serious issue of effectiveness of the process. Kenyatta may have meant well, when, he urged: “We must hasten the integration of the APRM in the African Union system. This will make the mechanism more credible, relevant, and visible at the continental stage and will give impetus to our revitalisation efforts.” But subsuming the mechanism under the already humongous systems, including frameworks such as the AU’s Agenda 2063 and the SDGs Agenda 2030 or regional economic blocs and NEPAD programmes, may not achieve the specialised concerns that birthed the APRM tool –– accountability and good governance.