Kenyan Self-Assessment process

Kenya officially acceded to the APRM in March 2003, along with other front-runners Ghana and Rwanda. After ratifying the country's accession to the mechanism, the Kenyan Cabinet appointed an Inter-Ministerial Task Force to develop a road-map and organisational structure for the country in conducting its self-assessment and compiling a program of action. It also appointed the Ministry of Planning and National Development as the country's APRM National Focal point.

The Task Force, chaired by Mr David S O. Nalo, completed its preliminary work by June 2004, and on the 14 July 2004 constituted the country's First National Stakeholders Consultative Forum. The primary aims of the Consultative Forum were: to sensitize the public about the APRM in Kenya; to discuss the adaptation of the APRM questionnaire for field research in Kenya; to identify stakeholders in the four thematic areas of governance addressed by the APRM; and to inform the delegates of the proposed national APRM structures and bodies. A Second National Stakeholders Consultative Forum was held on the 21 July 2004, and at this forum the convenors of the country's four thematic areas were elected and members of the country's National Governing Council (NGC) were nominated. 8 members were elected from the forum to serve on the NGC (2 representatives from organisations in each thematic area), who in addition to 7 members from government ministries, 2 members nominated by the Minster of Planning and Development and 8 non-voting members from the 4 Lead technical institutions (selected later) and the convenors of the 4 thematic groups, comprised the 25-person NGC established at the end of the Second Consultative Forum.

Table 1 - Kenya's APRM National Governing Council

Note: Two members of the NGC resigned and were not replaced, and three were removed by the Minster of Planning and Development, and are not listed here. One member resigned from the organisation he represented and was not replaced.

The composition of this initial NGC proved problematic, as several stakeholders present at the Consultative Forum meetings accused the task force and the constituted NGC of irregular selection practices and failing to fully represent Kenyan society. Stakeholders intimately involved in this exchange have suggested that these accusations may have been motivated by ulterior objectives, and that the process by which the NGC was constituted was satisfactory to the majority of the participants. However, the accusations coincided with the country's first Country Support Mission, led by APR Panel member Dr Graça Machel. The mission, which visited the country from 26-27 July 2004, noted these criticisms with concern and recommended that the NGC be expanded to include more members from civil society, increasing the number of civil society representatives by 8, bringing the NGC's membership to 33. The Task Force and the NGC then selected 4 reputable research institutions to conduct research and surveys on the APRM's four key governance areas.

Table 2 - Kenyan Lead Technical Agencies

Representatives from the four research institutions joined the convenors of the of the four thematic groups as non-voting members of the 33-member NGC, which was inaugurated in October 2004. The NGC was assisted by the NEPAD Kenya Secretariat, which housed staff in support of the APRM.

The funding arrangements in Kenya proved to be a source of contention and delays, as the initial budget of the Kenyan APRM process was estimated at over $1 million. The government pledged its support to the process in collaboration with a basket of donors who provided funding to the NGC and research institutions. However, the disbursement of funding was problematic and the arrangement between the Kenyan government, the donor basket fund and the NGC lead to (at times) lengthy delays in the release of needed resources to complete the report. The complex structure and multiplicity of role players in Kenya's APRM process also contributed to confused and at time contradictory reporting streams, which led to some confusion and duplication of roles and responsibilities.

Having completed its original mandate, the Task Force was phased out and the NGC took charge of the APRM process, but was unable to make significant progress in agreeing on and implementing a country review process. According to the Kenya CSAR:

...the NGC became increasingly fractious, with some members pre-occupied with matters of finance rather than the APRM self-assessment exercise. This caused inordinate delay in the execution of the national process.

These delays prompted a second CSM to Kenya on 13 - 15 July 2005, in an attempt to resolve the issue of a non-performing NGC and other issues delaying the process in Kenya. As an emergency measure, and in response to the non-performance of the NGC, the Minister of Planning and Development de-gazetted the Chairperson of the NGC (Mrs. Grace Akumu) and two other members (Amb. Orie Rogo Manduli & Ms Shanisa Khasiani) deemed to be responsible for thwarting the process from moving forward. A new chairperson was elected, Reverend Japheth Gathaka. The re-organised NGC re-committed itself to the task of completing a CSAR and Program of Action, and was able to submit such a draft in September 2005, prompting the APRM Secretariat to prepare for the Kenyan Country Review Mission (CRM).

The NAPRM-GC employed the services of four Technical Review Institutes (TRIs) to conduct extensive research and gather information on the four key areas of governance outlined in the APRM. The TRIs were selected based on their existing track record in the governance field in question.