AU peer review mechanism on hold

Namibia would have little trouble meeting the requirements of the African Union's African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), but the government has chosen to wait and join later for the right reasons. The APRM was developed to ensure that the policies and practices of participating states conformed to a set of agreed political, social, economic, and governance values. Commitment is voluntary. Namibian foreign affairs minister Marco Hausiku said: "We have no budget for that, but Namibia is ready to move at the right time and on the right cause - we would have to pay N$600,000 [US$92,000] to join [the review]." The mechanism, mutually agreed by the 53 African Union (AU) member states, was launched in 2003 to ensure conformity with the standards contained in the AU Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. So far, 26 member states have committed to participating in the process, with Ghana being the first to do so and Lesotho signing up last week. According to Hausiku, some African countries viewed the APRM as a means of obtaining more donor aid. At the recent presentation of a study compiled by the Namibia Economic Policy research Unit (NEPRU), 'The APRM - an independent preliminary assessment of Namibia', Hausiku commented that "we don't join the review mechanism to get assistance - the best way is for countries to improve conditions and not simply to get something in return, like [donor] funding". Researcher Mariama Deen-Swarray of NEPRU, who compiled the study, concluded that if Namibia joined in the APRM, it would fulfil most of the requirements. "The country has adopted most of the standards and codes required by Nepad [The New Partnership for Africa's Development, the AU's integrated socioeconomic development framework for Africa]." Namibia scored well in all sectors required for the APRM, the study found. Participating in the process would help "advertise Namibia to its development partners and investors", and assist the Government in "strengthening the capacity to implement the principles of good political, economic and corporate governance, which the country has subscribed to". The research also noted that "Namibia's challenge is unique to Africa and shared only by South Africa ... having to address inequalities created by apartheid rule in a peaceful and non-disruptive manner". However, in a review of press freedom in the region published this month, the Namibia-based Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA) criticised the APRM process: "The African Peer Review Mechanism presents a serious defect in that it omits a key requirement for good governance: the fostering of free and independent news media". MISA director Kaitira Kandjii commented that the review process was not broad-based enough. "The review mechanism was developed and is carried out by government agencies [in each country] with no, or not sufficient, involvement of civil society organisations and those who are affected by government policies."