The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) regional conference was organized by the Africa Leadership Forum (ALF), which is a non-governmental organization established in 1988 by the Nigerian President Obasanjo. ALF’s main objective is to encourage the development of good leadership qualities in Africa through networking, discussion of topical issues and an exchange of ideas on good practices. Since the NEPAD has identified good leadership, as one of the conditions for achieving sustainable development in Africa and the APRM is the instrument for monitoring the effectiveness of that leadership, ALF took the initiative to convene this conference.

Since the NEPAD program is ready to embark on the Peer Review stage, ALF organized the regional conference to acquaint Parliamentarians and Civil Society with the principles and process of the APRM. The conference was also designed as a forum for Parliamentarians and Civil Society to develop strategies for their involvement in the implementation of the Peer Review Mechanism.

The sessions commenced with presentations by resource persons, followed by a lead comment, before being opened to a general discussion. Issues raised by the speakers included:

• The APRM is claimed to be African owned, does that ownership refer to Heads of State or the African people who have given the Heads of State a mandate to lead them?
• Is the APRM for the people and by the people or is it for the NEPAD partners who provide the financial resources?
• Will participating governments open up to scrutiny by the people and by other governments?
• Are governments prepared to involve the people in all the five stages of the review process?
• Does the APR secretariat have the capacity in terms of funding, competent and adequate personnel to conduct the reviews of the16 countries (or more) that have acceded to the APRM?
• Since the APR is a political and not a legal process, how can the citizenry be assured of the mechanism’s continuity beyond specific Heads of State?
• Considering the different sizes and strengths of APRM member states, will the large and powerful states accept recommendations from small and weaker states; and will recommendations from large and powerful states not be perceived as bullying by the smaller and weaker states?

As one of the resource persons, Gender Equality Network member Hon. Priscilla Misiharabwi-Mushonga presented an analysis of the APRM process and management, with special emphasis on the involvement of women. Some of the observations made were that the NEPAD forms the basis for the APRM and the criticism levelled against the former being gender-blind also applies to the latter. For instance, a country’s performance is supposed to be reviewed on the basis of issues that make no reference to gender inequality, thus implying that gender issues will not be given the attention that they deserve. The appointment of people to the various APRM structures was identified as another area of concern because of the misleading assumption that the women in those structures were gender sensitive. On the APR process, which involves consultations with all stakeholders in a country, Priscilla posed a question on how and whom will the country review teams consult with to get the views of women considering that this is not an organized group of stakeholders.

In terms of the role of Parliamentarians in the APRM process, the deliberations of this group concluded that:

• There was unanimous agreement about the need for the active involvement of Parliamentarians if the review mechanism was to succeed since they are directly in contact with the people.
• It was important for Parliamentarians to understand how the APRM will operate in order for them to inform the people and to mobilise support for the mechanism.
• Upon return to their countries, Parliamentarians would be proactive by requesting the Executive to officially report to them on the APRM.
• Parliamentarians will advocate for institutionalisation of the APRM.
• Parliamentarians will bid for funds necessary for popularising and mobilising support for the APRM.
• In addition to the Parliamentary committees dealing with the different aspects to be covered by the APR, there was need for an APRM coordinating committee, which becomes the Parliament’s focal point for interacting with the APR officials.
• Given the little time allocated for discussion of this issue, another forum was necessary for the development of a detailed involvement strategy.

In follow-up to this conference, the Gender Network now plans to support the women’s caucuses in countries undergoing the APRM (Rwanda, Ghana, Kenya, etc.) to actively monitor the review process.