THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA SETTING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

Professor Athumani Juma Liviga

November 2013

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

AfriMAP, the Africa Governance

Monitoring and Advocacy Project,

is an initiative of the Open Society

Foundations and works with national

civil society organisations to conduct

systematic audits of government performance in three areas:

the justice sector and the rule of law; political participation

and democracy; and effective delivery of public services. As

well as conducting reviews of the APRM processes, it also

assesses electoral management bodies and the role of state

broadcasters in Africa.

The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and

tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to

their citizens. To achieve this mission, the Foundations seek to

shape public policies that assure greater fairness in political,

legal, and economic systems and safeguard fundamental

rights. On a local level, the Open Society Foundations

implement a range of initiatives to advance justice, education,

public health, and independent media. At the same time, we

build alliances across borders and continents on issues such

as corruption and freedom of information. The Foundations

place a high priority on protecting and improving the lives of

people in marginalised communities.

Professor Athumani Juma Liviga, from Tanzania, is a specialist in political science with extensive knowledge and experience in

the fields of public policy analysis, local government, governance, human resource development and institutional development.

He has over 15 years’ experience in teaching, research and consultancy.

2013 Open Society Foundations

This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website or the AfriMAP website under a Creative Commons

licence that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society

Foundations and used for non-commercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from

the publication.

ISBN 978-1-920677-38-1

Design and lay-out by COMPRESS.dsl | www.compressdsl.com

For further information, contact:

AfriMAP, PO Box 678, Wits 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa

info@afrimap.org | www.afrimap.org

Open Society Initiative for Eastern Africa (OSIEA), PO Box 35752-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

info@osiea.org | www.osiea.org

The Open Society Initiative for Eastern

Africa (OSIEA) supports and promotes

public participation in democratic

governance, the rule of law, and respect

for human rights by awarding grants,

developing programmes, and bringing together diverse

civil society leaders and groups. OSIEA seeks to promote

open society and to consolidate democratic principles and

practices through increased public participation and the

creation of a strong institutionalised rights framework. OSIEA

seeks to play an active role in encouraging open, informed

dialogue about issues of national importance.

OSIEA

iii

ACRONyMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

PREFACE v

SuMMARy OF THE APRM PROCESS 1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3

Findings 3

Recommendations 4

THE NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICA’S DEVELOPMENT AND THE APRM 5

Stage One: Self-assessment and country support mission 6

Stage Two: Country review mission 6

Stage Three: Country review report and modification of plan of action 6

Stage Four: Conduct of peer review 7

Stage Five: Publication of the report and plan of action 7

BACKGROuND AND CHRONOLOGy OF THE PROCESS 8

INSTITuTIONAL SET uP 11

The Focal Point 11

The National Governing Council 11

APRM National Secretariat 12

THE APRM PROCESS 13

Objectives of the APRM process in Tanzania 13

Sensitisation 13

Country support mission 14

Preparation of the country self-assessment report 14

National plan of action 16

Country review mission February–March 2012 18

Process 18

EVALuATION OF THE CSAR AND NPoA 20

Coverage and content 20

Gaps/issues not covered 21

National plan of action 21

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE APRM PROCESS IN TANzANIA 23

Assessment of the APRM institutions 23

Analysis of the Focal Point 23

Participation by stakeholders 24

Role of APRM Panel of Eminent Persons 25

Role of the executive 25

OuTCOME OF THE PROCESS 26

Promoting national dialogue 26

Democracy and political governance 27

Economic governance and management 28

Conclusion 28

Contents

iv

AfDB African Development Bank

AfriMAP Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project

APR African Peer Review

APRM African Peer Review Mechanism

APRM NS APRM National Secretariat

Au African union

CCM Chama cha Mapinduzi

CSAR country self-assessment report

CSOs civil society organisations

CRR country review report

CRM country review mission

CSFM country support follow-up mission

CSM country support mission

CuF Civic united Front

ECOSOCC African union Economic, Social and Cultural Council

ES Executive Secretary

LGAs local government authorities

GNu Government of National unity

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGC National Governing Council

NPoA national plan of action

MDAs government ministries, departments and agencies

MFAIC Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

MTEFs medium-term expenditure frameworks

NSGRP National Strategy for growth and Poverty Reduction

PCCB Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau

PEDP Primary Education Development Programme

PSs permanent secretaries

PMO-RALG Prime Minister’s Office: Regional Administration and Local Government

REPOA Research on Poverty Alleviation

SEDP Secondary Education Development Programme

TATs technical assessment teams

uNDP united Nations Development Programme

uNECA united Nations Economic Commission for Africa

Acronyms and abbreviations

v

This report critically assesses implementation of the African

Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) process in Tanzania

in order to establish the extent to which it complied with

principles and criteria contained in the APRM founding

documents. In particular the assessment examines the extent

to which the process was open, participatory, transparent

and independent. Tanzania acceded to the APRM in 2004

becoming the fourteenth country to do so.

The assessment is part of a series commissioned by the Africa

Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP) of

the Open Society Foundations (OSF) in collaboration with

OSF’s Open Society Initiative for Eastern Africa (OSIEA).

Similar reports have been published on Algeria, Benin,

Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique,

Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa and uganda.

The report is based on a review of the process documents,

media reports and interviews with people involved in the

process as participants or experts. As part of compiling

the report was a validation workshop that brought together

stakeholders to debate and validates the report findings. It

covers the following issues: APRM institutions in Tanzania;

the APRM process; an evaluation of the self-assessment

report; an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the

APRM process; and the outcomes of the APRM process.

The report finds that while composition of the National

Governing Council (NGC) reflected broad representation,

sensitisation of the general populace about the APRM could

have been more extensive and intensive. As a result a large

portion of the population is unaware about the existence of

the APRM in the country.

We hope that this report will assist those that are engaging

with the APRM process in Tanzania in order to make it an

effective platform for national dialogue about governance.

We believe that if the findings and recommendations made

in the report are given due consideration, a second-round

review will be a much improved process.

Ozias Tungwarara

AfriMAP Director

Preface

1

The government acceded to the mechanism by signing

the Memorandum of understanding (Mou) on 26 May

2004 and the country’s Parliament ratified the Mou on

1 February 2005. The ratification of the Mou was preceded

by a sensitisation seminar for members of Parliament

conducted by the government through its (now defunct)

Ministry of Planning, Economic Affairs and Empowerment.

Three more sensitisation seminars for various stakeholders

(state and non-state actors) were held between March and

October 2006. Commencement of the process in Tanzania

involved sensitisation of key stakeholders and a visit by the

country support mission (CSM) led by Professor Adebayo

Adedeji, in June 2006. The mission advised on constituting

a representative and inclusive National Governing Council

(NGC). The implementation of the APRM in Tanzania was

characterised by strong support of the President and genuine

effort to maximise citizen participation in the self-assessment.

The Focal Point was the first institution to be appointed

(2005) and in 2006, the country set in place the

institutions to implement the APRM. These included

the Focal Point, the National Governing Council (NGC)

and the APRM National Secretariat (APRM NS). After

the creation of the NGC in October 2006, appointment

of the Executive Secretary was done in April 2007 and

finally the National Secretariat for the APRM was officially

set in place in October 2007. There were two short delays

in the APR process in Tanzania, one between February

2005 and March 2006 and the second between January

2010 and March 2011. Both delays were occasioned by

the country’s preparations for the general elections held in

October 2005 and 2010 respectively.

The country self-assessment process in Tanzania was led

by the NGC composed of 20 members representing a range

of interest groups from both government and civil society.

Four members of the NGC come from the government

and the other 16 come from civil society representing 16

different social groups in Tanzanian society. The NGC has

been supported by the APRM NS headed by an Executive

Secretary. Members of the Secretariat were appointed on

a competitive basis following advertisement of the posts in

national newspapers.

The NGC and the Secretariat appointed four technical

assessment teams (TATs) in September 2007 that carried

out research and drafted the four thematic sections of the

country self-assessment report (CSAR). Three of the TATs

were from the university of Dar es Salaam, namely, the

Department of Political Science and Public Administration

(Democracy and Political Governance); Department of

Economics (Economic Governance and Management); and

College of Arts and Social Science (Corporate Governance).

Assessment of the Socio-Economic Development thematic

area was undertaken by Research on Poverty Alleviation

(REPOA). REPOA is an NGO. The selection of the four TATs

was open and followed national procurement procedures

that included open bidding. All four TATs were clearly

competent to carry out the work, and at no time were they

influenced or interfered with by external forces including

the government in their research and drafting the respective

sections of the CSAR.

The TATs completed desk research in March 2008 and

presented their draft reports for discussion by stakeholders

at four different seminars, one for each thematic area.

These reports were later revised in May 2008. In the

meantime independent consultants carried out expert and

household opinion surveys on governance in Tanzania and

their reports were integrated into the four thematic reports

Summary of the APRM process

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

2

in January 2009. The resulting self-assessment report

and its accompanying national plan of action (NPoA) were

later subjected to validation in two stages. First, validation

workshops were held in all the regions in the country in

January 2009, after which a national validation workshop was

convened in Dar es Salaam in February 2009. Participants

to all validation workshops were drawn from all social groups

representing state and non-state actors.

It should be noted however that while the drafting of the CSAR

was participatory (involving a wide range of stakeholders)

that of the NPoA was completely an expert affair. The NPoA

was prepared by the APRM NS and representatives (mainly

planning officers) from government ministries, departments

and agencies (MDAs). There is ample evidence that the

drafting of the NPoA was selective in the sense that the

proposed activities of action to address the governance

gaps did not address all the gaps in some issues notably

union matters and the constitution. The NPoA also lacks

clear indication of which areas are given priority in respect

of implementation. There is no mention of what should come

first and what should follow and in which order.

A second country support follow-up mission (CSFM) visited

Tanzania for two days, 3–4 March 2009. The mission

composed of five people was led by Professor Adebayo

Adedeji, a member of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons.

It reviewed progress and achievements up to that time and

agreed with the NGC on a road map that included: completion

of the CSAR and the NPoA in March/April 2009; submission

of the CSAR to the Continental Secretariat in June 2009;

the CSM to prepare an issues paper, assemble the country

review mission (CRM) and hold informal consultations on

the country review report (CRR) in September 2009, submit

the CRR to the government of Tanzania, edit and reproduce

the CRR in November 2009; and the country to be peer

reviewed in January 2010.

The country self-assessment report (CSAR) was submitted

to the APRM Continental Secretariat on 14 July 2009.

However, the follow up activities agreed between the

CSFM and the NGC were not carried out as planned in the

roadmap. Prof. Adedeji had commitments in Ethiopia. At the

same time Tanzania was already engaged in preparations

for the general election of October 2010. In the meantime,

there were three political developments that made some

observations in the CSAR redundant. First, before the

elections of 2010 a law – the Elections Expenses Act –

was passed to regulate election financing and address

issues of corruption in elections. Secondly, a Government

of National unity (GNu) was formed in zanzibar as part of

efforts to address post-election crises there. And thirdly, a

law was passed in Tanzania to initiate review of the union

Constitution.

With these developments in mind the APRM NS advised the

NGC to revise both the CSAR and the NPoA. The TATs revised

both documents and the NGC convened a national workshop

on 10 August 2011 to validate the two documents. The new

versions were then submitted to the APRM Continental

Secretariat with an invitation to the country review mission

(CRM) to visit Tanzania. The CRM came to the country in

March 2012 and for about three weeks it consulted widely

with various stakeholders, verified facts in the CSAR and

pointed out some weaknesses in the NPoA. The CRM noted

for example that the Focal Point is not in the right ministry

and secondly, that the NPoA is ambitious and that it needs

to be revised with a view to prioritise actions proposed to

address the governance gaps identified in the CSAR. And, at

the debriefing session it was agreed that Tanzania should be

peer reviewed in July 2012. The peer review eventually took

place in January 2013.

3

as possible including special groups such as women,

people with disabilities, youth, etc. Representatives included

politicians, members of the media (print and electronic),

private sector, religious organisations, academia, judges and

justices, government officials as well as city, municipal and

district executive directors. Respondents for the interviews

were carefully selected and the sample included people

from both rural and urban areas, but there were fewer

women respondents than men and urban interviewees

outnumbered rural inhabitants. Elites (on the basis of

education) dominated the process as most of the educated

people are men and are located in urban areas.

The APRM Panel of Eminent Persons played a major role in

setting up the APRM in Tanzania. Two missions visited the

country, the first assisting in forming a representative NGC

and the second contributed to drawing up a roadmap for

implementing the process. The APRM in Tanzania benefited

also from the presence of experts from Ghana and Kenya

during the early seminars before the process began in

earnest.

Adapting the questionnaire to fit the local context and

translating it into Kiswahili (the national language) made

it easy to understand and use. Many people would have

had difficulties responding to its questions as some were

complicated and not all respondents could speak English.

The CSAR and the NPoA have not been published and

disseminated to the public. Only those who were closely

involved in the process know its existence and contents. The

report has been reviewed to update some of the findings

which had become outdated due to developments that had

taken place after September 2009.

Findings

APRM institutions

Selection of NGC members was open and its composition

is broadly representative. Recruitment of members of

the Secretariat was also transparent involving tendering,

selection and interviews conducted by an independent panel

of experts. The same process was followed in selecting the

TATs. The appointment of members of the NGC did not

specify a time limit for their participation in the process, they

continue sitting in the Council even after some have left the

organisations they were representing. Location of the Focal

Point at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International

Cooperation (MFAIC) gave the process a high profile but

is not the most ideal for the implementation of the APRM

NPoA as most of the issues in the APRM process fall outside

the MFAIC’s main jurisdiction. The three main institutions

co-operated well and no friction arose between them. They

all commanded the necessary capacity and competence

to handle this big project from its inception to finalising the

CSAR and the NPoA and beyond.

The APRM process

Commendable efforts were made to sensitise people before

the process began. Despite these efforts sensitisation was not

extensive and intensive enough to reach a large percentage

of citizens in the country. There is a good portion of the

population that has no knowledge of the existence of the

APRM process in the country. Participation by stakeholders

and especially civil society organisations (CSOs) was very

good. Participants to seminars and validation workshops

were drawn from as many sections of Tanzanian society

Findings and recommendations

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

4

Office: Regional Administration and Local Government

(PMO-RALG).

On the APRM process

Three main recommendations to the NGC:

1. Sensitisation and awareness creation should be a

continuous exercise and currently this can begin with the

publication and dissemination of the CSAR.

2. For interviews – ensure sampling procedures take into

account the representative requirement and include equal

number of men and women as well as a balance between

rural and urban residents in the list of respondents.

3. The end product of the process – the CSAR and the

NPoA should be published as soon as the exercise is

completed so as to inform the public of the outcome of

the process.

On the CSAR and its outcome/impact

Two key recommendations to the NGC:

1. The NPoA should reflect recommendations contained

in the CSAR and the proposed governance actions must

address directly each and every identified governance

gap.

2. Review and rewrite the NPoA to indicate clearly priority

areas for the government’s response. The NPoA

should indicate priority governance actions to be taken

immediately (short term), in the medium term and those

for the long term. It should be realistic and not over-

ambitious by including everything as if it were a wish list.

Two recommendations to the government:

1. It should address all identified governance gaps as

recommended and included in the NPoA.

2. Maintain in place the NGC and APRM NS as independent

institutions and revise their mandate(s) to empower them

to monitor implementation of the CSAR recommendations

and governance actions proposed in the NPoA.

Outcome of the APRM process

The APRM process has been instrumental in influencing

change in the manner public affairs are handled by the

government on the one hand, and on the other it has been

an empowering tool for the general public. The APRM

process has had a hand in the enactment of the law to

provide the legal basis for the formation of the Presidential

Commission on the new constitution. In the same vein, the

Election Expenses Act was passed to address governance

issues in election financing.

Parliament has also benefited from the process as it

strengthened its oversight functions vis a vis the executive.

Parliamentary probe committees have increasingly become

potent mechanisms to hold the executive accountable.

The formation of the GNu in zanzibar came amid calls to

end the election impasse on the isles following protracted

negotiations for most of the last ten years. And CSOs have

joined hands under the Legal and Human Rights Centre to

follow up issues regarding the APRM process.

There are positive developments in the political processes

(and governance in particular) in Tanzania and these include,

among others, the following:

• Enhanced national debate on a number of issues that

have been contentious before and after the process

started. These include, for example, the debate on

the constitution, independent candidates in elections,

election expenses, corruption, accountability, etc.;

• Government accepting and committing itself to open

review by its citizens and acknowledging the fact that

it has to be responsible and accountable to its citizens

and ensure principles of good governance are not only

observed but seen to be observed;

• TheAPRMprocesshasbroughttotheforegovernance

issues that were not common discussion topics among

the people especially in the sectors of economic corporate

governance.

Recommendations

On institutions

Two recommendations to the government:

1. Term of office should be specified for members of the

NGC with provision to replace any member once he/she

has left the organisation he/she represents.

2. In post-APRM implementation of the NPoA, review the

decision to locate the Focal Point in the MFAIC with a

view to moving it and placing it in the Prime Minister’s

5

Au Assembly of Heads of State and Government. There is

also a steering committee comprising 20 Au member states,

to oversee projects and programme development.

In July 2002, the Durban Au summit supplemented NEPAD

with a Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic

and Corporate Governance. According to its terms, states

participating in NEPAD ‘believe in just, honest, transparent,

accountable and participatory government and probity

in public life’. Accordingly, they ‘undertake to work with

renewed determination to enforce’ inter alia the rule of

law; the equality of all citizens before the law; individual

and collective freedoms; the right to participate in free,

credible and democratic political processes; and adherence

to the separation of powers, including protection for the

independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of

parliaments.

The Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and

Corporate Governance also committed participating states

to establishing an African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)

to promote adherence to and fulfilment of its commitments

in its member states. The Durban summit also adopted a

document setting out the stages of peer review, and the

principles according to which the APRM should operate.

In March 2003, the NEPAD HSGIC meeting in Abuja, Nigeria,

• adopted an APRM Memorandum of Understanding

(Mou) which effectively operates as a treaty; this entered

into effect immediately, with six states agreeing to be

subject to review (as of November 2013, 34 countries

had acceded);

• agreed a set of ‘objectives, standards, criteria and

indicators’ for the APRM;

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is a

strategic framework that sets a ‘vision for Africa’s renewal’.

Five heads of state – those of Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria,

Senegal and South Africa – initiated the programme, and

NEPAD’s founding document was formally adopted by the

37th summit of the Organisation of African unity (OAu) in

Lusaka, zambia, in July 2001. NEPAD is now under the

aegis of the African union (the Au, which succeeded the

OAu), though it has its own secretariat, based in South

Africa, to coordinate and implement its programmes.

Greater integration of this secretariat and NEPAD in general

with the Au’s processes and structures has been proposed

at subsequent Au summits.

NEPAD’s four primary objectives are to eradicate poverty,

promote sustainable growth and development, integrate

Africa with the world economy, and accelerate the

empowerment of women. It is based on two underlying

principles: commitment to good governance, democracy,

human rights and conflict resolution; and the recognition

that maintaining these standards is fundamental to the

creation of an environment conducive to investment and

long-term economic growth. NEPAD seeks to attract

increased investment, capital flows and funding, and to

provide an African-owned framework for development

as the foundation for partnerships at both regional and

international levels.

NEPAD is governed by a Heads of State and Government

Implementation Committee (HSGIC), which finalised the

policy framework adopted at Lusaka in October 2001. The

HSGIC comprises representatives of three Au member states

for each region, with President H.E. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf

(Liberia) as elected chair, and presidents Bouteflika (Algeria)

and Wade (Senegal) as deputy chairmen, and reports to the

The New Partnership for Africa’s Development and the APRM

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

6

• a number of technical research institutions, which

are given the responsibility to administer the APRM

questionnaire and carry out background research.

The APRM documents identify five stages in the review

process.

Stage One: Self-assessment and country support mission

A country support mission (CSM) from the APRM

Secretariat, led by the assigned eminent person, visits the

participating country to ensure a common understanding of

the rules, processes and principles of the APR. The team

liaises with the country’s focal point, and organises working

sessions and technical workshops with stakeholders. The

eminent person signs an Mou with the government of the

country concerned, on modalities for the country review

mission. The country then begins its self-assessment report

(CSAR), which is based on the APRM questionnaire. It is

also expected to formulate a preliminary plan of action

(PoA) to address the shortcomings identified in the CSAR.

The PoA should be based on existing policies, programmes

and projects.

The self-assessment is supposed to involve the broad

participation of all stakeholders in the country, which

includes citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs) and

government ministries and departments.

Stage Two: Country review mission

Following on the submission of the draft CSAR, a country

review mission (CRM) team, also led by the same eminent

person, and made up of representatives of the APRM

Secretariat and of the APRM partner institutions (which

include the uN Economic Commission for Africa – uNECA,

and the African Development Bank) visits the country to

carry out broad consultations, clarify any issues that may

require discussion, and help to build national consensus on

way forward.

Stage Three: Country review report and modification of plan of action

The CRM drafts a report (the country review report – CRR),

based on the information it has gathered during its review

• approved the establishment of a secretariat for the

APRM, to be based in South Africa;

• endorsed the appointment of a seven-person ‘panel of

eminent persons’ to oversee the conduct of the APRM

process and ensure its integrity.

The APRM Secretariat, which had become functional by

late 2003, developed a questionnaire based on a wide

range of African and international human rights treaties and

standards, to guide the self-assessments of participating

states concerning their compliance with the principles of

NEPAD. Its questions are grouped under four broad thematic

headings: democracy and political governance; economic

governance and management; corporate governance;

and socio-economic development. The questionnaire was

formally adopted in February 2004, in Kigali, Rwanda, by

the first meeting of the APR Forum, which is made up of

representatives of the heads of state or government of all

the participant countries. At this point, the formal process

of peer review was ready to start. The meeting identified

the first four countries to undergo review as Ghana, Kenya,

Mauritius and Rwanda.

Since then, 17 APRM-acceding countries have completed

their first reviews. In chronological order, these are Ghana,

Rwanda, Kenya, South Africa, Algeria, Benin, uganda,

Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Lesotho, Mali, Mozambique,

Mauritius, Ethiopia, zambia and Tanzania. Each country to

be reviewed is assigned to one of the eminent persons, who

consider and review reports and make recommendations to

the APR Forum.

In order to implement the APRM’s objectives and ensure

that the self- assessment process is satisfactorily completed,

the ‘country guidelines’ issued by the APRM Secretariat

lay down that several institutions should be established at

national level. Although these have varied somewhat in form,

they have generally included:

• anationalAPRMfocalpoint,ideallyapersonatministerial

level or in the office of the presidency, and reporting

directly to the head of state;

• anationalcommissionorgoverningcouncilresponsible

for overseeing the national self-assessment process

and signing off on the documents produced, the

members of which should be diverse and representative

of a wide range of interest groups, and which should

be autonomous (though not all countries have fully

respected this rule);

• a national APRM secretariat, to provide administrative

and technical support to the national commission or

governing council, ideally functioning independently of

government and with control of its own budget;

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

7

mission and on independent issues papers developed by

the continental APRM Secretariat, and shares these findings

with the government. The country finalises its PoA, which

outlines policies and practices for implementation, basing it

on both the CSAR and the CRR.

Stage Four: Conduct of peer review

The CRM’s report and the country’s PoA are presented at

the APR Forum by the eminent person and the country’s

head of state or government to the other participating heads

of state and government for consideration.

Stage Five: Publication of the report and plan of action

After the report has been considered by the APR Forum, it is

tabled at the Au Summit before being made public.

8

Tanzania) in place until mid-2007 to support the National

Governing Council (NGC).

6–8 June 2006

Tanzania received the country support mission (CSM), led

by Professor Adebayo Adedeji, from 6–8 June 2006. The

mission provided valuable advice on how to proceed with the

process of constituting the review, especially with respect to

the inclusiveness of the NGC and the integrity of the APRM

country structures. The mission met with the President of the

united Republic of Tanzania and signed an implementation

agreement.

2 October 2006

Prof. Daudi Mukangara was appointed as Executive Secretary

(ES) for the APRM NS. Recruitment process of members of

the APRM NS began by advertising the posts in newspapers.

By the end of 2006

The NGC was established. Letters of appointment sent out

to members.

August 2007

The recruitment process of members of the APRM NS was

completed and seven professional staff members were

formally appointed.

Tanzania is among 35 countries that are participating

in the APRM process. The government acceded to the

mechanism by signing the Mou on 26 May 2004 and the

Parliament ratified the same on 1 February 2005 becoming

the fourteenth country to join the APRM. The operations of

APRM Tanzania commenced in earnest in mid-2007, when

a fully-fledged APRM National Secretariat (APRM NS) was

established to support the NGC. The two-year gap in the

process was occasioned by the 2005 general elections

that involved a number of people playing different roles in

the APRM process. The process started with sensitisation

seminars, then formation of key institutions including

the technical assessment teams (TATs). Collection of

information and data, drafting the country self-assessment

report (CSAR), validation workshops and quality assurance

were all done in 2008. The CSAR was submitted to the

APRM Continental Secretariat on July 14 2009, with the

expectation that the country review mission (CRM) would

have been fielded to Tanzania in September the same year.

It was further envisioned that the country would have been

peer-reviewed in January 2010. The rest of the process

proceeded as follows:

March 2005–May 2006

There was not much that was done in respect of the APRM

process as the country was engaged in preparations for

the presidential and parliamentary elections that were held

in October 2005. Thereafter the process of government

formation contributed to the delay in the review process.

It is worth noting that although Tanzania joined the APRM

in 2004 and despite commendable commitment by the

government to initiate the process thereafter, Tanzania did

not manage to put the implementing structure (APRM NS

Background and chronology of the process

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

9

Tanzania. The team was led by Professor Adebayo Adedeji,

a member of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and

the leader for the Tanzanian process. Other members

of the team were: Ms Evelynne Change and Ms Nana

Boateng, who are from the APRM Continental Secretariat as

Coordinator of Corporate Governance and Research Analyst

in the Socio-Economic Development thematic respectively,

Mr Guy Ranalvomanana from the united Nations Economic

Commission for Africa (uNECA) and Mr Oswald Leo from the

African Development Bank (AfDB).

The overall objective of the CSFM was to review the progress

made so far and to exchange views on how best to carry out

the remaining activities aimed at accomplishing the process.

In the end, the CSFM agreed with the NGC on the road

map for finalisation of the Tanzanian process. The roadmap

indicated, among others, the following:

1. Completion of the CSAR and the NPoA in March/April

2009;

2. Submission of the CSAR and the NPoA to the Continental

Secretariat in June 2009;

3. The CSM to prepare an issue paper, assemble the

country review mission and hold informal consultations

with the Tanzania on the country review report (CRR) in

September 2009;

4. Official submission of the CRR to the government of

Tanzania;

5. Editing and reproduction of the CRR in November 2009;

and

6. Peer review of Tanzania in January 2010.

14 July 2009

The CSAR was submitted to the APRM Continental

Secretariat on 14 July 2009. However, the follow up activities

agreed between the CSFM and the NGC were not carried out

as planned and indicated in the roadmap. Major intervening

factors were the preparation for and conducting of the

general elections held in October 2010.

2009–2011

Three key political events had taken place in Tanzania. Firstly,

prior to the 2010 elections a law – the Elections Expenses

Act – was passed to regulate election financing and address

issues of corruption in elections. Secondly, there was in

zanzibar the formation of Government of National unity

(GNu) following the elections in October 2010. Thirdly, a Bill

was tabled in Parliament in 2011 to enact a law to provide

for a process to start to review the union Constitution. The

Act was passed and subsequently a commission was formed

September 2007

Recruitment of technical assessment teams (TATs) is

completed and formal appointment letters issued to four

institutions. The TATs conducted and completed their desk

research from October to December 2007.

December 2007–October 2008

The APRM NS conducted a countrywide dissemination of

information regarding the APRM process. There was extensive

coverage of APRM process in numerous programmes,

news bulletins, stories, features and advertorials on TV and

radio, and in newspapers. An 8-page quarterly newsletter

was published in April, July and October 2008 and 90 000

copies were distributed to the public, mostly as a newspaper

pull-out. Its electronic version was placed on the APRM

Tanzania website.

March–May 2008

The TATs presented their draft reports in the four major APRM

thematic areas to workshops of technical representatives of

stakeholders that lasted four days, one day for each thematic

area. These workshops were convened by the APRM NS for

the purpose of reviewing the draft reports.

August 2008

In June and July the TATs revised their desk research

reports, and in August 2008 they conducted countrywide

household and expert panel surveys of public opinion on

governance in Tanzania.

January 2009

The TATs merged their desk research reports with the

household and expert panel draft reports into one document

– the draft Country Self-Assessment (CSAR) of the APRM

in Tanzania. The draft CSAR, with its accompanying plan

of action (PoA), was subsequently tabled at validation

workshops in regions and at the national level in February

2009. Participants to the validation workshops were drawn

from state and non-state actors including permanent

secretaries and their deputies at the national level.

3–4 March 2009

The country support follow-up mission (CSFM) visited

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

10

by the President to manage the review process. These

developments made observations contained in the CSAR in

the respective areas outdated.

March 2011

The CSAR was reviewed and updated to take into account the

political developments that had occurred after September

2009. The reviewing and updating of the CSAR was done by

the TATs. The NGC convened a special validation workshop

on 10 August 2011. The workshop validated also a revised

NPoA. The revised CSAR and the NPoA were then submitted

to the APRM Continental Secretariat in South Africa. A

country review mission was subsequently invited to visit the

country.

2–22 March 2012

A CRM arrives in Tanzania on 2 March 2012 and begins

activities by meeting members of the NGC, APRM NS and

TATs. In subsequent meetings the mission, led by H.E.

Barrister Akere Tabeng Muna, chair of the African union

(Au) Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) and

member of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons. The mission

consulted widely touring ten regions on both mainland

Tanzania and zanzibar. Among those consulted included the

union Vice President, permanent secretaries, judges and

justices of the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Speaker

of the National Assembly and chairs of parliamentary

committees, and representatives of CSOs.

The mission pointed out, among key observations, that the

Focal Point was not in the right ministry and secondly, that

the NPoA is ambitious and that it needs to be revised with a

view to prioritise actions proposed to address the governance

gaps identified in the CSAR. And, at the debriefing session

it was agreed that Tanzania should be peer reviewed in

July 2012.

January 2013

Tanzania is peer reviewed during the APR Forum of heads of

states and government in Addis Ababa.

11

institutions of the Au, and that the APRM Continental

Secretariat is based outside the country, as one of the

institutions of the Au.

Recognising the fact that the process involved not only

international relations but also that most of the issues

revolve around governance locally, the Planning Commission

and President’s Office (Good Governance) were designated

principal assistants to the Focal Point ministry. Other

government ministries and departments (MDAs) were

also involved in the process as part of the input from the

government.

The National Governing Council

The most important institution was (and still is) the National

Governing Council (NGC). The NGC was appointed mid-2006

by the first National Focal Point, the Ministry of Economic

Affairs and Empowerment, which invited a number of

representatives groups to nominate one representative to

form the council.

The members of the NGC were drawn from across Tanzanian

society and it is in all respects very representative. There are

20 members in total, representing the following groups:

• Government(bothUnionandZanzibar) 4

• Politicalparties(bothrulingandopposition) 2

• Religiousorganisations(MuslimandChristian) 2

• Media 1

• Farmers’associations 1

• Privatesector(MainlandandZanzibar) 4

• Peoplewithdisability 1

The APRM process in Tanzania was under the management

of three main institutions according to the continental

guidelines established for the APRM process. The National

Focal Point within the government, the independent

National Governing Council (NGC), made up of a number of

representatives of different segments of Tanzanian society,

and the APRM National Secretariat (APRM NS). The NGC

reports to the government (President) through the Focal

Point for all matters under its jurisdiction. The Secretariat

reports to the NGC and through the NGC to the government

via the Focal Point.

The Focal Point

First to be appointed was the APRM National Focal Point,

appointed by the President from among the government

ministries. The first Focal Point was the Ministry of Planning,

Economic Affairs and Empowerment, appointed in 2005 and

replaced in 2006 by the Head of the Directorate of Africa

Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International

Cooperation (MFAIC), a position of ambassadorial rank.

The Focal Point is in charge of the coordination between

the government, the APRM Continental Secretariat based

in South Africa, and the other national APRM institutions.

Three focal point officers (FPOs) have held this position

since the beginning of the process in Tanzania. The first

FPO, Ambassador Malambugi was appointed in 2006.

He was succeeded in 2011 by an Acting FPO, Ms zuhra

Bundala and since mid-June 2012 the FPO is Ambassador

Vincent Kibwana.

The selection of the MFAIC was based on the fact that

the process involves interlinkages with organisations and

Institutional set up

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

12

was a leader of an NGO of people with disabilities. These

members of the NGC continue to serve on the Council but

no longer work with their former organisations.2

APRM National Secretariat

The final major institution is the APRM National Secretariat

(APRM NS), located outside the government structure

(MFAIC). The APRM NS has its own office located at the

National Insurance Corporation (NIC) Investment House

along Samora Avenue in Dar es Salaam. Professional

members of the Secretariat are employed on short-term

contracts, they are not civil servants. The APRM NS

members were appointed by the MFAIC in August 2007 after

a thorough process of tendering, selection and interviews by

a panel of experts to ensure the recruitment process was

competitive, transparent and fair. The recruitment process

began with advertisements in leading national newspapers

(Kiswahili and English) for the various positions in the

APRM NS. Applications were received by the Focal Point

ministry and interviews conducted by a panel constituted by

members from the NGC, State House, Focal Point ministry

and the Executive Secretary (ES). The Executive Secretary is

an Economist who has had a distinguished career with the

Tanzania Investment Bank rising to the rank of manager. She

started working at the APRM NS as Coordinator of Economic

Governance before her appointment as Executive Secretary

in 2010.

Functions of the APRM NS include providing technical

support to the NGC; facilitating seminars and workshops;

and performing day to day activities of the APRM in Tanzania.

It also responsible for preparing reports for submission to the

APRM Continental Secretariat as well as to the government

of Tanzania.

The APRM NS comprises three departments: Administration,

Finance and Coordination. With respect to professional staff

there are six officers including the Executive Secretary; two

coordinators each responsible for two of the four thematic

areas; a Media and Communications Officer; an Events and

Logistics Manager, and a Finance Officer. There are seven

support staff members.3

2 Observation made by Mr S.M. Hyera, a member of the APRM National Secretariat on 27 July 2012.

3 APRM staff list, 2007.

• Cooperatives 1

• CSOs 2

• Academia 2

There are five women in the NGC, the first is the Vice Chair

(from Tanzania Episcopal Conference); the second comes

from the government (united Republic of Tanzania); the

third represents the Tanzania Gender Networking Program

(TGNP); the fourth represents the CCM (the ruling party);

and the fifth represents CSOs. There is a clear majority

of non-government members in the council. The NGC

has a chair and vice chair. The Chair, Prof. Hasa Mlawa,

was appointed by the President of the united Republic of

Tanzania. He is a long-serving and renowned academic at

the university of Dar es Salaam. The Vice Chair was elected

by the members of the NGC from among its own members.

The NGC meets monthly.

The NGC has steered the APRM process from its inception

until now. Its members have participated in the sensitisation

process and various meetings; supervised and monitored

the collection of information and data for the preparation and

finalisation of the thematic reports; as well as guiding the

Secretariat. It has its own executive committee composed

of the Chair, Vice Chair, three other members who are

chairpersons of the three NGC committees of Finance and

Administration, Coordination and Publicity. The NGC was

constituted by a presidential order and not special legislation

and its authority stems from that order.

The NGC has been a key institution because it gave direction

to the Secretariat regarding the whole process up until the

country self-assessment report (CSAR) was drafted and

submitted to the APRM Continental Secretariat. The APRM

process was and still is a big project and the NGC has

handled the process very well.1

The only possible source of tension now is the fact that

there was no timeframe set for membership to the NGC

by the individuals selected by their organisations and

endorsed by the government. Those members who no

longer work for their nominating organisations still retain

their seats in the NGC. There is no provision for replacing

members of the NGC who have left organisations from

which their nominations were proposed. This becomes a

problem because the nominating organisations feel left

out of the process as the individuals selected to represent

them are no longer their members. There are three such

cases: one involves a retired Executive Secretary of the

Public Service Commission, the second was Executive

Secretary of the Tanzania Media Council and the third

1 Observation made by Prof. Daudi Mukangara, 1st National Executive Secretary in an interview for this report on 12 July 2012.

13

Point and the NGC conducted a series of sensitisation

workshops from January 2005 to 2008 with a view to

make stakeholders aware of the programme so that they

could participate and own the process as well as ensure

its sustainability. A total of 153 sensitisation seminars have

been organised countrywide for key stakeholders with more

than 2 000 people participating in the seminars. The very

first sensitisation seminar was conducted in January 2005

by the government through its (now defunct) Ministry of

Planning, Economic Affairs and Empowerment, the first

National Focal Point.5

The next set of sensitisation seminars/workshops for

stakeholders in regions and the national level (in Dar es

Salaam) were organised and run by the APRM NS. These

seminars were also held in zanzibar. The APRM NS

recruited consultants to conduct the sensitisation seminars

in the regions. The consultants underwent a two-day trainer

of trainers (ToT) workshop in Dar es Salaam before being

dispatched to their respective regions. At the regional

workshops participants were informed about the APRM

process and its objectives, the importance of everybody

invited to the seminars and others to participate in giving

opinions and cooperating with people (e.g. members of the

TATs) when they visited their areas to collect information and

data for the APRM questionnaire.

There was also significant input by external institutions and

individuals in the sensitisation process. At the initialisation

5 This ministry conducted four seminars as follows: 26 January 2005 for members of Parliament in Dar es Salaam; 23–26 March for Directors and other ranking officers from government ministries in Bagamoyo; 18 October 2006 for high-ranking government officers including permanent secretaries from the government of zanzibar in zanzibar; and 19 October 2006 for CSOs and the private sector in Dar es Salaam.

Objectives of the APRM process in Tanzania

At the launching of the NGC in 2009 in Dar es Salaam

President Jakaya M. Kikwete pointed out that the ‘APRM

process aims to foster the adoption of policies, standards and

practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth,

sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and

continental economic integration which could also be used

as a yardstick to attract foreign investment’. The President

stated further that Tanzania has acceded to the programme

for its many benefits including the fact that the country has

economic, social and political problems whose solution

hinges on good governance. He noted also that the APRM

process is expected to not only enable the government to find

out in which areas it is performing well and those with dismal

performance, but also enable the government to see which

areas needed more attention. In March 2012 the President

told the visiting CRM that the ‘APRM is like a mirror that helps

us to see where we are and what we have achieved in terms

of ensuring democratic leadership and good governance and

economic development in our countries. It is against this that

we are more than ready to implement your recommendations

when the right time comes.’4

Sensitisation

The process involved first, sensitisation of key stakeholders,

including members of Parliament. The National Focal

4 These statements were made by the President of the united Republic of Tanzania in Dar es Salaam and they both appear in an article entitled ‘APRM external review: So far so good’ by Orton Kiishweko in the Daily News, 19/3/2012.

The APRM process

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

14

August 2009 First consideration by the APRM Panel

September 2009 Informal consultation with Tanzania on the CRR

September 2009 Second consideration by the APRM Panel

October 2009 Official submission of the CRR to the government

October 2009 Receipt of comments on the CRR by the government

November 2009 Translation of the CRR into other lan-guages

November 2009 Editing and reproduction of the CRR

First week of January 2010

Circulation of the CRR to Forum members

January 2010 Peer review of Tanzania

Preparation of the country self-assessment report

The questionnaire

The generic questionnaire (issued by APRM Continental

Secretariat) is very comprehensive, covering many issues in

the selected four thematic areas – democracy and political

governance; economic governance and management;

corporate governance and socio-economic development.

Some of the questions were found to be complicated and

difficult for ordinary people to understand. A panel of experts

was set up to translate the questionnaire into Kiswahili (the

national language) to make it easy for all to understand its

contents and purpose. Extreme care was taken to ensure

the essence and messages in the questions were not lost

through the translation process. There were neither additions

nor deletion of questions in the questionnaire. The one major

change that was made is the translation into Kiswahili.

A special workshop of national (local) experts was

convened in April 2008 for the purpose of domesticating

the questionnaire. There was no input with respect to the

questionnaire or the methodology from the Continental

Secretariat. The experts tasked to check the relevance of the

continental questionnaire for the purpose of domesticating

it in Tanzania were both experts in methodology as well

as professionals in their areas of expertise. They were

drawn from institutions responsible for writing the thematic

chapters for the CSAR. The questionnaire was translated

into Kiswahili.

In addition to administering the questionnaire to expert

respondents, there were also other methods employed in

gathering information and data. The technical assessment

teams (TATs) used, among others, archival research,

household and expert opinion surveys, and special group

discussions. The main difference between the expert and

stage foreign experts were called in to assist before the

process began in earnest. Two experts from Ghana attended

sensitisation workshops and seminars and gave invaluable

guidance and advice and shared their experiences with the

APRM process as pioneers of the APRM assessment. One

of the experts was Prof. Asante, former Executive Secretary

of the Ghana APRM National Secretariat. The other was a

member of the Ghana NGC. These two experts conducted

the first sensitisation seminar for the NGC. They informed

their audience about the APRM process; the importance

of forming independent and representative as well as

competent institutions for the process; how Ghana went

about the self-assessment process and challenges that

lay ahead regarding the process. The external experiences

informed the organisation of the APRM in Tanzania.

Country support mission

The APRM Panel of Eminent Persons led two support visits

to Tanzania in the early phases of its process, the first visit

in 2006 and the second one in March 2009. Both missions

were led by Prof. Adebayo Adedeji, a member and later chair

of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons and the leader of

the Tanzanian process. Prof. Adedeji was accompanied by

members of the Continental Secretariat. These two visits

were crucial for the process in Tanzania. First, the 2006

mission advised and made sure that a representative NGC

was constituted and was operational. A major outcome of this

mission was the signing of an Agreement of Implementation

for Tanzania to start implementing the process. It was signed

by His Excellence, President Dr Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete on

behalf of Tanzania and Prof. Adebayo Adedeji on behalf of

the APRM.

The second mission visited Tanzania in March 2009 and its

basic activity was to review progress achieved until then and

chart the way forward in respect of the remaining activities in

order to complete the process. Many stakeholders interacted

with the mission and at the end a roadmap was agreed

between the mission and NGC. The road map provided for a

timeline for the completion of activities:

March–April 2009

Completion of the CSAR and the NPoA

May 2009 Validation of the CSAR and the NPoA

June 2009 Submission of the CSAR and the NPoA to the Continental Secretariat

July 2009 Preparation of country support mission involving:– Preparation of the issues paper– Assembling the country review team– Fielding the country review mission– Drafting of the country review report

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

15

economic, political and cultural processes. They were

selected on a transparent and competitive basis.7

The research process

By March 2008, the four TATs had prepared the first draft of

the CSAR component reports, based on desk research and

a series of workshops including focus group discussions.

After the desk research and workshops had been completed

by the TATs, two independent consultants were contracted to

conduct the household and expert opinion surveys in August

2008 in all the then 26 regions of Tanzania (both Mainland

and zanzibar) to elicit people’s opinions on governance.8

The consultants trained field staff (assistants) to conduct

the surveys, but supervision in the regions was done by

members of the APRM NS.

The sample for the expert survey involved Tanzanian citizens

of at least 26 years of age. The experts included people

like regional planning officers, district planning officers,

district education officers, etc. A total of 110 experts were

interviewed. This included three experts from each of the 25

regions and 35 experts from the Dar es Salaam Region. Data

collection of the expert questionnaire extended over the

period 18 August 2008 to 20 September 2008. Opinions of

most of the sampled experts from the regions were collected

in the period 18 August 2008 to 28 August 2008. The expert

questionnaire was filled in by another group of experts in Dar

es Salaam in a special workshop held on 9 September 2008.

With respect to the household sample survey, for the case

of rural areas in Mainland Tanzania, two districts were

selected and in each district two villages were selected with

21 households being sampled for each village. One person

aged 18 years and above, was sampled for interview in each

of the sampled households. For the case of zanzibar, two

shehia (wards) were selected from both districts in each

region and then 21 households were selected from each

sampled shehia. One person aged 18 years and above, was

selected for interview in each of the sampled household.

The sample size was technically representative of the total

population in Tanzania.

The sample for urban areas comprised the Dar es Salaam

Region and other nine municipalities on Mainland Tanzania

and the urban West Region in zanzibar. It also included a

super-stratum consisting of other urban districts in Mainland

7 The openness and transparency of the selection process has been confirmed by virtually all interviewees for this report. Further evidence to that is the fact that there has not been a complaint raised against the recruitment of any of the TATs.

8 There are currently 30 regions after the creation of four new regions.

household opinion survey was that the former solicited

analytical answers whereas the latter only sought to collect

opinions, for example choosing from given answers (on a

yes, no or don’t know basis). Both sets of questions were

derived from the generic questionnaire.6

The technical assessment teams (TATs)

Preparation of the CSAR followed guidelines that were issued

by the APRM Continental Secretariat. It covered all the four

thematic areas as given and each thematic area had specific

objectives and issues to be assessed through the generic

questionnaire that was adapted to the country context.

The drafting exercise was carried out by the four technical

assessment teams (TATs) and consultants were contracted

to put together the four thematic reports into one coherent

report. A separate consultant edited and synthesised the

four reports.

Four TATs were selected in October 2007 on a transparent

and competitive basis. The selection process was guided

by national procurement rules and procedures which

include open tendering, transparency and fairness (giving

an equal opportunity to all qualified and interested parties

to contest). In that regard, the selection process involved

the following:  advertisements in national newspapers;

shortlisting applicants; inviting the short-listed institutions

to submit proposals, interviewing those who submitted

proposals; and finally extending formal appointments to

the successful institutions. Interviews for selecting the TATs

were conducted by a panel whose members came from the

NGC, Focal Point ministry, and the Executive Secretary.

Three of the TATs were from the university of Dar es

Salaam – the Department of Political Science and Public

Administration (Democracy and Political Governance);

Department of Economics (Economic Governance and

Management); and College of Arts and Social Science

(Corporate Governance). Assessment of the Socio-Economic

Development thematic area was undertaken by Research

on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA). REPOA is an independent

research institution, an NGO that receives its funding from

national and international donors.

These four institutions are independent, competent and

highly regarded organisations in respect of conducting

objective research and analysis of Tanzanian socio-

6 APRM – Tanzania, Hojaji ya Kaya. Questionnaires (Hojaji) for all categories of stakeholders are available at APRM National Secretariat offices.

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

16

convened in April 2009 and participants came from the

following institutions:

• APRMTZ(NGCandSecretariat) 34

• Academia 10

• Politician/MPs 12

• Religiousleaders 5

• Media 22

• Cooperatives 8

• UnionGovernment 50

• GovernmentofZanzibar 14

• Gender-basedCSOs 12

• OtherCSOs 31

• Youthleaders 6

• Tradeunions 13

• Privatesector 12

• Peoplewithdisabilities 8

• Representativesfromregions 26

The main task for the workshop was to discuss and verify

the authenticity of the contents of the CSAR based on

their experiences (earlier contributions in interviews and

seminars) and available facts. The TATs made presentations

in their respective thematic areas and these presentations

were first commented upon by discussants (consultants and

experts in the respective thematic areas) and then subjected

to discussion by all present. All issues of substance that were

raised were later incorporated into the thematic area reports

by the TATs and later into the draft CSAR.

National plan of action

Dr David Manyanza, a consultant was hired by the NGC

in March 2009 to lead the exercise of drafting the NPoA.

The drafting began with a meeting of the consultant, some

members of the NGC, the APRM NS and the TATs. At that

meeting the identified governance gaps in the four thematic

areas as well as the recommendations of the CSAR were

discussed thoroughly. Members of the drafting team – the

consultant, APRM NS, lead persons from the TATs, and

planning officers from key sectoral MDAs – put together

the NPoA.

After the initial draft, the consultant and a few APRM NS

staff were tasked to finalise the NPoA including doing

the cost. The total amount required to implement the

NPOA is uSD 9 462 349 862. To arrive at this figure, the

required actions for each specific objective were analysed

and broken down into achievable tasks within a period of

three years.

Tanzania and other urban locations in zanzibar as listed for

the 2002 Population and Housing Census. The sampling

procedure for selecting the urban areas was, again, a

combination of four and three stages but, in contrast with

the rural sample, only 17 households were selected from the

list of households at the last stage.

Data collection of the household questionnaire was done

from 18 August 2008 to 31 August 2008. A total of 2 559

households were covered against the planned number

of 2 594 households. Despite the fact that the sampled

respondents were carefully selected and the experts drawn

from both rural and urban areas, there were fewer women

respondents than men and urban interviewees outnumbered

rural inhabitants. Elites (on the basis of education) dominated

the process as most of the educated people are men and are

located in urban areas.

A different survey for corporate organisations was conducted

with a view to establishing governance gaps and best

practices in their operations in the country. Prof. Gasper

Munishi proposed to the APRM NS that a different set of

questions were needed for corporate heads. The NS agreed

and made the final decision in that regard.

Opinions and investigations on governance which were

submitted by key social groups, consisting mainly of leading

CSOs, were also incorporated into the reports. Subsequently

the results of the opinion surveys were incorporated in the

desk research and discussed by the stakeholders in the

aforementioned national workshops. The reports were then

subjected to quality assurance and validation by stakeholders

at the first national validation workshop held in April 2009

(see list of participants below).

Finally, the thematic area reports were consolidated into

a single report – the CSAR with its accompanying NPoA

aimed at addressing the identified gaps in governance. The

consolidation of the thematic reports into a draft CSAR was

done by the APRM NS assisted by consultants, Dr Joseph

Shitundu and Dr Ali Kilindo (CSAR Draft Revised Edition,

August 2011).

Validation workshop

The draft CSAR has been subjected to a thorough quality

assessment and validation by experts (consultants) and

a national workshop that drew participants from almost

all known groups in society. Participants to the national

validation workshop were identified and invited by the APRM

NS using a compiled database from earlier seminars and

workshops. Invitations were sent out through email, letters

and by telephone. The first national validation workshop was

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

17

envisioned that the country would have been peer reviewed

in January 2010.

Delays in the review process

This did not happen for a combination of factors including

Tanzania preparing for a scheduled general election in

October 2010 and the lead eminent person, Prof. Adebayo

Adedeji had other commitments to attend in Ethiopia.14 In

the meantime there was in 2011 another key development in

Tanzania. This involved the formation of the Government of

National unity (GNu) following the elections in October 2010.

Prior to the 2010 elections a law – the Elections Expenses

Act – was passed to regulate election financing and address

issues of corruption in elections. There was at the same time

in 2011 a Bill tabled in Parliament to enact a law to provide

for a process to start to review the union Constitution. The

Act was passed and subsequently a commission was formed

by the President to manage the review process. These

developments made observations contained in the CSAR in

the respective areas outdated.15

Updating the report

The APRM NS advised the NGC that the report should be

reviewed, to update some of the findings which had become

outdated due to developments that had taken place after

September 2009. The TATs conducted the review and

updating in March 2011. Once again the revised report

was subjected to quality assurance and validation through

technical workshops capped by a national validation

workshop organised on 10 August 2011. The NPoA has

also been revisited after reviewing the governance gaps and

proposed governance actions. Participants to this second

(and special review) validation workshop were drawn from

the same list of participants who attended the first national

validation workshop.16 The revised CSAR and the NPoA

were then submitted to the APRM Continental Secretariat

in South Africa. A country review mission was subsequently

invited to visit the country.

14 Ethiopia was at this time beginning to implement the review process and Prof. Adebayo Adedeji was one of the members of the Panel of Eminent Persons assigned to go there.

15 For further details see Tanzania Country Self-Assessment Report, Summary of Findings (Revised Edition) August 2011.

16 CSAR Draft Revised Edition, 2011.

The tasks or cost drivers were considered, required inputs

ascertained and the associated costs determined. The

costs were determined based on experiences of experts

in implementing various programmes and projects and the

general knowledge of cost structure in Tanzania. Where

costs could not be ascertained, nominal planning figure

were considered and included.9

A workshop for state stakeholders from MDAs was convened

on 29 April 2009 to validate the NPoA contents. This

workshop was attended by people drawn from government

ministries and other government offices (agencies),10

members of the NGC, CSOs (10), and the APRM NS.

The NPoA does not have a monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

framework now but this will be developed and put in use

after the peer review is done.11 united Nations Development

Programme (uNDP) promised to assist in the development

of the M&E framework and the united Nations Economic

Commission for Africa (uNECA) has promised to assist to build

capacity for for implementation of the NPoA.12 However, as of

5 November 2013, no funds had been received by the NGC.

The government of Tanzania remains the sole provider of

funds. Consequently, nothing has been done to build capacity

for implementing the NPoA.13 It is anticipated that the MDAs

will institutionalise the programmes and include them in their

respective medium-term expenditure frameworks (MTEFs).

Thereafter, MDAs will start to implement the programmes by

rolling them over in their respective Annual Work Plans and

Budgets. The NGC and its Secretariat will be responsible for

monitoring and reporting the implementation of the NPoA on

a regular basis.

Submission to the APRM Continental Secretariat

The country self-assessment report was submitted to

the APRM Continental Secretariat on 14 July 2009, with

the expectation that the CRM would have been fielded

to Tanzania in September the same year. It was further

9 For details see chapter 8 of the CSAR, 2009.

10 Ministries represented at this workshop included Finance and Economic Affairs; Community Development, Gender and Children; Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government; Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; President’s Office-Planning Commission; President’s Office, Constitutional affairs and Good Governance; Tourism, Trade and Industries; and Government agencies including the National Environmental Management Council; Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau; and the Bank of Tanzania.

11 Information provided by the communication and logistics officer, National Secretariat, at an interview in Dar es Salaam on 12 July 2012.

12 Ibid.

13 Interview with an official of the Tanzania APRM NS on 5 November 2013.

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

18

the union Vice President and permanent secretaries. On

22 March the CRM had a debriefing session at State House.

There was no official communique at the end of the mission

but the media reported widely on its activities.17

Participation of stakeholders

The list of stakeholders the CRM met was representative

and key stakeholders were availed of the opportunity to

participate in the mission’s activities. At each meeting

the CRM heard different views from various speakers

that were frank and constructive. All meetings were open

to all stakeholders except one meeting (with permanent

secretaries) when members of the press were excluded. The

lead person, Barrister Muna explained that the permanent

secretaries were asked to give important information on

technical issues involving facts and dates and the CRM felt

that they would have been more comfortable in a media-free

environment.18 All meetings were well attended indicating

the importance stakeholders attach to the APRM process

as well as the degree of awareness for those involved. In

that regard Barrister Muna is reported to have said that his

team was pleased at the rate of awareness of the public on

governance issues, adding ‘we were really surprised by the

turn out, we were able to talk to farmers extensively’.19

Issues that emerged

The report of the CRM was not made public but a member

of the Secretariat20 stated that the mission had verified

various pieces of information and had open and frank

discussions on all issues that were raised. From discussions

with interviewees it emerged that the location of the Focal

Point in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International

Cooperation (MFAIC) was not the best for the APRM. Placing

it in the MFAIC was seen as an indicator of the government’s

perceptions of the process as an external one as opposed to

a local one with local ownership. It proposed that it should be

located in the ministry responsible for good governance. The

NPoA is ambitious and it needs to be revised with a view to

17 For the entire duration of the visit, leading national newspapers reported on the activities of the mission. Articles in three leading newspapers appeared as follows: Orton Kiishweko, ‘APRM external review – so far so good’, Daily News, 19/3/2012; Meddy Mulisa, ‘Tanzania: APRM Panel praises Kikwete’s empowerment fund’, Daily News, 13/3/2012; Florence Mugarula, ‘Government accused of copying irrelevant foreign plans’, The Citizen, 05/03/2012.

18 By The Citizen Reporter, ‘Government officials meet APRM Team’, The Citizen, 19/3/2012.

19 Rose Athumani, ‘Tanzania: PS explains cause of poverty’, The Daily News, 20/3/2012.

20 The communication and logistics officer indicated, albeit briefly, what the CRM had found and suggested to the APRM process in Tanzania.

Country review mission February–March 2012

Composition of the mission

The CRM was led by H.E. Barrister Akere Tabeng Muna,

chair of the Au’s Economic, Social and Cultural Council

(ECOSOCC) and member of the APRM Panel. Other

members included the following:

• DrRachelMukamunana(Rwanda)–CRMcoordinatorfor

Tanzania

• Prof.AhmadMohidin(Kenya)–APRMStrategicPartner

(uNDP)

• DrFrancisChigunta(Zambia)–APRMconsultant

• DrThomasKibua(Kenya)–APRMconsultant

• Prof.Ameze(Nigeria)–APRMconsultant

• Prof.AdeleJinadu(Nigeria)–APRMconsultant

• MsArleteYamek(Gabon)–APRMSecretariat

• Prof.AbdulAzizJolish(SierraLeone)–APRMconsultant

• DrAnnieChikwanha(Zimbabwe)–APRMconsultant

• MsCandyW.Okoboi(Uganda)–APRMconsultant

• DrBernardDosah(Ghana)–APRMUNECA

• DrKojoBusia(Ghana)–APRMUNECA

• MsNancyKgengweyane(Botswana)–APRMUNDP

Process

The mission arrived in Dar es Salaam on 2 March and began

its activities on 3 March by meeting members of the NGC,

APRM NS and the TATs. On 4 and 5 March the mission had

meetings with non-state stakeholders and state stakeholders

respectively. On 6 March the CRM had an internal working

session with some members visiting zanzibar where

they met and held discussions with the 1st and 2nd Vice

President. On the following day they had a CRM launch

ceremony hosted by His Excellency the President of the

united Republic of Tanzania, Dr Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete at

State House. After the ceremony mission members held

talks with the President.

On 8 March the CRM split into two teams and began a

regional tour. Team 1 went to zanzibar, Pemba, Mtwara,

Mbeya and Dodoma while Team 2 went to Kagera, Arusha,

Ruvuma and Kigoma. In each of the regions the CRM

held two meetings, one with state representatives and the

other with CSOs. The teams came back to Dar es Salaam

on 16 March and held talks with judges and justices of the

High Court and Court of Appeal. On 17 March the CRM

met with the Speaker of the National Assembly and chairs

of parliamentary committees. During the next two days the

CRM held talks with leaders of political parties, and met

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

19

publish and disseminate the CSAR widely. They resorted to

putting the CSAR report on their website. People in rural

areas could not access the CSAR on the website due to lack

of electricity and computers. Lack of information is definitely

an obstacle to popular participation.23

23 Example given by an official of the APRM NS during the validation workshop.

prioritise actions proposed to address the governance gaps

identified in the CSAR. And at the debriefing session it was

initially agreed that Tanzania would be peer reviewed in July

2012. The country review report was sent to the government

for its response in September 2012 and the peer review took

place in January 2013.

Financing the APRM process in Tanzania

The entire review process needs substantial funding,

estimated by APRM Tanzania to be in the region of

2.5  billion shillings (about uSD 2  million) in the first year

of the organisation’s operations (2007/08). Through a

budget approved by Parliament, the Tanzanian government

committed itself to providing 84.4% of the financial needs in

2007/08, while uNDP Tanzania committed itself to providing

for 15.6%. At the end of the financial year the government

had been able to provide about 50% of the required funds.

uNDP Tanzania provided the rest of that year’s funding to

cover the deficit.

In the second year of operations (2008/09), APRM Tanzania

had estimated its funding requirements to be in the region

of 3 billion shillings (about uSD 2.5 million). The government

had pledged to provide for 66% of the financial needs, while

the uNDP committed itself to meeting the rest.21

In the next two years only the government of Tanzania

financed the APRM process. In 2009/10 APRM Tanzania

(the NGC for that matter) estimated the cost to be in the

region of Tshs 4 503 324 426. The MFAIC approved only

a quarter of the requested amount, i.e. Tshs 1 billion.

Parliament finally approving only Tshs 999 999 289.

In the year 2010/11 the NGC requested Tshs 4 731 652 732;

the MFAIC approved Tshs 1 billion. The cost for revising

the CSAR and the NPoA raised the amount given by the

government to Tshs 1  142  260 000.22 The estimated

amount for 2012 is Tshs 3 835 779 911. The amount spent

is yet to be released. It is not easy to say why every year

the NGC receives less than the requested amounts. But

members of the NS hinted that one of the main reasons

is that the government is facing budgetary constraints and

therefore it cannot afford to give to every institution the full

amount of money they request. The government’s inability

to provide the NGC with adequate funding had negative

consequences in relation to planning and implementation of

APRM activities. For example, that the APRM NS could not

21 APRM Tz: Sensitisation Document.

22 Translation-seminar with members of Parliament (members of  Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Committees of the National Assembly) on the APRM process in Tanzania.

20

cabinet ministers and their deputies from among members

of Parliament. The fight against corruption is taken seriously

by the government but citizens still accuse the government

of focusing its war largely on petty corruption rather than

grand corruption. There is a positive trend in this regard

as the culture of impunity on grand corruption cases is

giving way to accountable governance. Protection of rights

of women and children and other vulnerable groups has

been given priority by the government by ratifying relevant

international conventions but situation on the ground is far

from being satisfactory.24

On economic governance and management, the CSAR

observes that there has been improvement on macro-

economic performance and stability but Tanzania continues

to face challenges with respect to overdependence on

aid, effects of large aid inflows and weak macroeconomic

linkages that threaten to undermine economic performance.

The CSAR notes further that the scale of money-laundering

is low in Tanzania. Nonetheless, the level of criminal

activities related to corruption, trafficking in humans,

drug trafficking and incidences of terrorist activities in the

country call for sterner measures and greater capacity to

deal with them. It states also that Tanzania has adequate

policies and strategies for the promotion of international

trade, yet the country remains a marginal player in global

trade. The country faces a number of challenges including

an unfavourable trade balance and multiple memberships to

more than one integration scheme with each moving towards

a customs union.25

24 CSAR (2011), pp. 170–180.

25 CSAR (2011), pp. 256–257.

Coverage and content

The CSAR is a 645-page document that is divided into eight

chapters.

• Chapters1and2providebackgroundandcontextofthe

APRM process in Tanzania;

• Chapters3through6coverthemainfindingsinthefour

thematic areas – democracy and political governance,

economic governance and management, corporate gov-

ernance and socio-economic development;

• Chapter7isaboutoverallconclusionsandrecommenda-

tions and;

• Chapter8isthenationalplanofaction(NPoA).

It is a thorough report reflecting critical and in-depth analysis

of the issues under the four thematic areas as well as putting

them in the context of the ongoing global socio-political,

economic and cultural trends or globalisation.

In respect of democracy and political governance the main

findings point out that the leading source of conflicts in

the society are political in nature, that economic factors

such as inequality and wealth distribution are secondary

sources, and that there has been significant improvement

in constitutional democracy and the rule of law since the

reintroduction of multiparty politics in 1992, but the legal

framework and institutional arrangements in Tanzania are too

restrictive to allow for a well-functioning multiparty system.

The CSAR also points out that Tanzania has improved the

policy and legislative environment to strengthen public

institutions for efficient and effective public service delivery.

However, the fusion of the executive and Parliament

complicates the functioning of the doctrine of separation

of powers in Tanzania, for example the appointment of

Evaluation of the CSAR and NPoA

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

21

that of changing mind-sets and the lack of awareness of

citizens legal rights.27

Gaps/issues not covered

The CSAR has touched on virtually all the key elements in the

four thematic areas and as provided for in the questionnaire.

The report is detailed and it is not easy to state categorically

what has been left out. However, during interviews (for this

post APRM process assessment report) it came to light that

a number of key issues were not given the weight expected

by stakeholders. This is in relation to the way the proposed

activities of action to address the governance gaps were

framed in the NPoA whose analysis is next below. It can

briefly be stated that the technical experts from the MDAs

were selective in treating some issues, including union

matters and the constitution.

National plan of action

In terms of content the NPoA is a very comprehensive

document and it states clearly what the activities by APRM

objectives are for each thematic area, required action

(activity to be carried out), indicators that can be monitored,

implementing agency, key stakeholders, timeframe for each

activity separately, expected output, estimated cost and

monitoring and evaluation agency. The NPoA shows ongoing

initiatives including current projects in government’s other

national programmes. It also shows the link between APRM-

identified actions and other ongoing programmes of the

government in the four thematic areas. What is lacking in

the NPoA is a clear delimitation of priority activities or at

least sequencing of actions to be taken. There is also no

indication of what should be immediately done, what comes

in the short or medium term and, which activities would be

ongoing and for the long term. As it now stands the NPoA

is like a wish list of issues that stakeholders would like the

government to address. There is no clear guidance as to

when it should begin being implemented. It is left to the

government to decide, probably depending on the availability

of funds and other resources.

The actions proposed in the NPoA to address the governance

gaps do not all reflect what the CSAR found out and

recommended. For example on the union question (under

democracy and political governance), the CSAR found out

that there is a discontent from both sides of the union in

matters of the structure and sharing of resources; yet there

27 CSAR (2011), pp. 484–488.

As far as corporate governance is concerned, the CSAR

findings observe that Tanzania has embarked on various

institutional, policy, legal and regulatory reforms to enable

the private sector to assume a lead role in the economy.

However, enforcement of the reformed policies, laws and

regulations for ideal corporate governance remains by and

large weak, particularly in the areas such as labour laws,

human rights and sustainable environmental management.

Tanzania has provided generous investment incentives to

foreign and local investors but some of them have continued

to abuse such incentives. It is common for investors to stay

for five years without paying significant taxes. Enforcement

of codes, standards and good practices is often times

marred by corruption, collusion and low capacity on the part

of enforcement institutions, for example the Fair Competition

Commission, Tanzania Food and Drug Authority and

Tanzania Bureau of Standards. Tanzania is a signatory to

good practice standards such as the International Standards

Organisation, The International Accounting Standards, and

International Standards on Auditing. However, corporate

executives are in some cases barely accountable for the

negative consequences of their operations, especially in the

area of environmental pollution.26

Notable findings in the socio-economic development

thematic area include Tanzania making important strides in

implementing poverty reduction strategies with an increased

share of public expenditure in the social sector especially

towards basic education and the provision of health

services; and stakeholders being involved in the formulation

of development strategies and policies in order to ensure the

sustainability of strategies such as the National Strategy for

Growth and Poverty Reduction (NSGRP) popularly known

by its Kiswahili acronym MKuKuTA, the zanzibar Poverty

Reduction Programme (MKuzA), the Primary Education

Development Programme (PEDP) and the Secondary

Education Development Programme (SEDP).

Positive improvements have been recorded in the areas of

primary school enrolment, passing the primary school leavers

examinations, childcare, access to household sanitation,

reforms in the financial sector, access to information and

communications technology (ICT) as well as providing a

legal and policy framework for promoting gender equality.

However, the high cost of services is a critical problem.

There is, for example, inadequate coordination of various

institutions involved in planning and delivery of sanitation

services. Electricity generation and coverage countrywide is

very low. There are impediments to financial markets and in

other areas such as human rights, a major challenge remains

26 CSAR (2011), pp. 323–327.

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

22

is no specific proposed action to address this problem in

the NPoA. Secondly, the CSAR found out that the institution

charged with fighting corruption – the Prevention and

Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) – is weak, lacking

independence as it is under the office of the President. The

PCCB is reporting to the executive and not to Parliament.

The CSAR recommended a review of the PCCB establishing

Act with a view to review the authority to appoint and dismiss

CEOs. It also recommended that the Bureau should not

be under the office of the President, and there should be

limitations on the powers of the President as to its operations,

as well as the Bureau reporting to Parliament and not the

executive. There are four proposed governance actions to

fight corruption in the political sphere and six governance

actions to fight corruption and money laundering. Only one

of the ten actions refer to the recommendations by the CSAR

regarding the PCCB.

A similar trend is seen in relation to governance gaps in

local government authorities (LGAs). The CSAR identified

several governance gaps including the inadequate capacity

of local government officials to develop and execute local

plans; the insufficient capacity of LGAs to generate revenue;

too much dependence of LGAs on central government

resources affecting governance; and the tendency of central

government to interfere with the operations of LGAs. There

are nine proposed governance actions to address the

governance gaps under ‘promotion of sound public finance

management’ where the LGAs’ problems are listed. None of

the nine proposed actions address the governance gaps in

LGAs. There is no attempt to address the gaps despite the

centrality of LGAs in service provision and their inadequacies.

23

in regional tours to verify seminars and workshops had been

conducted properly, and received and discussed reports

from the APRM NS, TATs as well as consultants.

The only possible source of tension now is the fact that there

was no timeframe set for membership to the NGC by the

individuals selected by their organisations and endorsed by

the government. Those members who no longer work for

their nominating organisations still retain their seats in the

NGC. This becomes a problem because the nominating

organisations feel left out in the process as the individuals

selected to represent them are no longer their members.

Analysis of the Focal Point

As the Focal Point, the MFAIC has made a tremendous contri-

bution to the sensitisation exercise and the establishment

of the APRM NS and the NGC. It continues to play an

important role in relation to issues of protocol (in the event of

foreign missions visiting Tanzania), liaison and coordination

between the various stakeholders involved in the process.

These responsibilities have been handled well but a number

of issues have been raised during interviews with some

stakeholders for this post APRM-process report. The issues

raised suggest that the location of the focal point should

have been elsewhere for the following reasons.

First, most of the activities in the APRM process fall outside

the jurisdiction of the ministry and for that matter, the ministry

is not particularly suited, for example, to oversee technical

research work done by the TATs in that regard. Secondly,

the ministry did not give much weight to the APRM process

compared to its other functions. Thirdly, the APRM process

Assessment of the APRM institutions

The four institutions (the NGC, APRM NS, Focal Point and

TATs) worked well together. With respect to reporting, the

NGC reports to the government (President) through the Focal

Point for all matters under its jurisdiction. The Secretariat

reports to the NGC and through the NGC to the government

via the Focal Point. Among the factors responsible for

smooth cooperation between these institutions include:

• Some members from these institutions attended the

first sensitisation seminar convened by the government

(Ministry of Planning, Economic Affairs and Empowerment)

in March 2006, before the process began in earnest in

2007. There was therefore a common understanding

among the individuals involved in the APRM process of

not only its objectives but also how it should be done.

• Thegovernmentdidnot inhibit theprocess inanyway

and the President encouraged everybody involved to

play their role. He personally attended some seminars,

launched the NGC and hosted visiting CRM missions at

State House.

• Asindividualssomeofthemembersoftheseinstitutions

had worked together at one institution and easily made

the new teams work together as they knew one another

well before their new appointments.

The NGC is a very strong institution in terms of its

composition (broad based), individual qualifications of the

members in their respective professional areas as well as

experience in administrative matters. The APRM process

was and still is a big project and the NGC has handled the

process very well. The NGC managed the APRM process in

Tanzania. It supervised the selection of the TATs, advised

the APRM NS on policy direction, its members participated

Strengths and weaknesses of the APRM process in Tanzania

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

24

participants were invited from different groups/sections of

society representing many different interests. There has not

been any official complaint reported either to the NGC or

APRM NS or through the press about the exclusion of an

organisation. The seminars and validation workshops were

inclusive with respect to the participation of stakeholders and

the validation workshops (at the regional and national level)

provided opportunities for all stakeholders to verify whether

the contents of the CSAR and the NPoA were accurate and

reflected people’s views.

Participation by CSOs took several forms, with many members

being invited to sensitisation seminars during the collection

of information and data, and validation workshops after

the CSAR was drafted. Some individuals from CSOs were

appointed to the NGC representing groups such as women,

farmers, religious organisations, etc. A major observation is

that in most developing countries (particularly those that had

been under a single party system for long periods in their

history such as Tanzania) CSOs tend to be weak, fragmented

and not coherent enough to hold government accountable.

Organisational, financial and institutional capacities have

been major challenges for CSOs in these countries. But

these weaknesses notwithstanding, a good number of CSOs

engaged with key elements of the APRM process in Tanzania.

They participated in most seminars and workshops, including

meetings with the Panel of Eminent Persons. While CSO

participation can be considered credible, issues of capacity

need to be addressed so that participation is expanded to

broader civil society formations.

The effective participation by stakeholders varied between

groups especially based on education, skills, experience and

position. During seminars and workshops people tended

to give views based on their background, experience and

professional competence. This was particularly true during

the collection of information seminars and workshops.

During validation workshops – attended by experts and a few

selected other representatives – discussions were focused

on and critical of the content of the draft report. In other

seminars and workshops people tended to dwell on popular

issues (corruption, constitution, accountability) concerning

democracy and political governance to the exclusion of

others, especially economic governance and management,

corporate governance and socio-economic development.28

It should also be stated that despite all efforts made,

sensitisation was not extensive and intensive enough to

reach the majority of citizens in the country.

28 Observation made by Mr Hebron Mwakagenda of the Leadership Forum at an interview for this report on 10 July 2012.

does not end with the writing and presentation of the CSAR.

The process goes beyond this and entails implementing

the recommendations contained in the CSAR as well as

the proposed governance actions to address the identified

governance gaps as indicated in the NPoA. Considering

the ownership of the process and the sustainability of the

implementation of the measures to be adopted by the

government, the relevant ministries should have been either

the Prime Minister’s Office: Regional Administration and

Local Government (PMO-RALG), the Planning Commission

or the President’s Office (Good Governance). The alternative

location mentioned during interviews for this report

suggested the PMO-RALG for the following reasons:

• ThePrimeMinister is inchargeoverallandresponsible

for the implementation of government decisions.

• The PrimeMinister is head of government business in

Parliament and a good link between the executive and

the legislature as well as the general public (citizens) for

accountability purposes.

• The portfolio of the Prime Minister includes regional

administration and local government, making it the

most extensive in terms of government network and

implementation issues.

• The PMO-RALG could draw assistance from the other

ministries for joint government action more easily than

any other single ministry.

Participation by stakeholders

The government had right from the first sensitisation seminar

invited a representative sample of participants. Invitees

included government officials (of the rank of director), CSOs,

the private sector and academia and research institutions.

In subsequent sensitisation seminars invitees included

members of Parliament, members of the National Governing

Council and senior staff of the Focal Point ministry.

Thereafter seminars were organised for government officials

in regions and districts as well as executive directors of local

government authorities. Participants to these seminars were

drawn from CSOs; religious organisations; special groups

including women, youth, people with disabilities, etc.; and

representatives from cooperatives and farmers’ associations.

At the national level groups included political parties; media;

trade unions; chambers of commerce; and government

representatives from both union and zanzibar governments.

The NGC assisted by the APRM NS also publicised the

APRM process through both print and electronic media.

During the collection of information and discussions prior

to drafting the report, seminars and workshops were held

in all the regions and a few in Dar es Salaam. In both cases

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

25

Role of the executive

As far as role of the government is concerned it can be stated

that it has been, and continues to be, the principal object and

actor in the APRM process. The key institutions performed

their tasks without interference from the government. The

NGC, the APRM NS and the TATs were allowed freedom

of action and formed their own conclusions. At seminars

and validation workshops government officials, including

permanent secretaries, attended and participated like any

other participants. At certain times, however, government

officials tended to be defensive but never tried to influence

the direction of discussion or content of the resulting

reports.34 Secondly, the government embarked on the

sensitisation process long before the main institutions – the

NGC, APRM NS and the TATs – were put in place. It took the

initiative in spite of the fact that it was in essence the object

of the assessment. Thirdly, the government committed

funds with the APRM process becoming one of the line

items in its budget as approved by Parliament. In addition

to funding, the government committed personnel from some

of its ministries, including Foreign Affairs and International

Cooperation (MFAIC), the Focal Point ministry, Planning

Commission and President’s Office (Good Governance).

In the course of preparing the CSAR, the government gave

feedback/responses at various stages as required by the

process. And currently, the government is the main actor in

implementing the recommendations made in the report as

part of the other national programmes such as the Tanzania

Development Vision 2025 and the National Strategy for

Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP), which envision

good governance permeating the national socio-economic

structures, thereby ensuring a culture of accountability,

rewarding good performance and effectively curbing

corruption and other vices.

34 Ibid.

There is a good portion of the population that still has no

knowledge of the existence of the APRM process in the

country.29 This is a problem in so far as those who participated

in the seminars and workshops kept the information to

themselves. As representatives of various groups they ought

to explain to their constituents and once this was not done, the

representation aspect becomes redundant and of no value.

However, one notable fact is that some CSOs that have been

active in the process have, under the Legal and Human Rights

Centre, organised themselves for the purpose of monitoring

progress in implementing the recommendations and actions

earmarked by the NPoA to address the governance gaps

identified in the CSAR. This set up is outside the formal

government structures and it augments well the CSOs’

initiative to carry out public expenditure tracking that has

been in place for some time now.30

What can be said with certainty is that CSOs have become

more aware of the need to be proactive in engaging with

the government in respect of governance issues.31 The

opportunity availed by the APRM process has been

instrumental in opening the political discussion space and

the realisation on both sides (government and citizenry

and their organisations – CSOs) that the status quo cannot

be allowed to continue. The APRM process has been an

empowering tool to the majority of those who participated.32

Role of APRM Panel of Eminent Persons

The APRM Panel of Eminent Persons has played a key role

in assisting Tanzania with the process. They were involved

in a number of activities: they advised on the formation of

an inclusive and representative NGC; signed the Mou with

the government; participated in drawing a road map for the

implementation of the APRM in the country; together with

the Continental Secretariat they prepared reports and sent

them to the government for responses; and in the country

review mission of February/March 2012, they checked and

verified facts – important information and dates contained in

the revised CSAR (NGC Paper No. 2/13).33

29 Observation made by Prof. Daudi Mukangara, 1st National Executive Secretary, in an interview for this report on 12 July 2012

30 This information was obtained from an official of the APRM NS and a member of the Policy Forum. Policy Forum is an NGO specialising on issues of governance and one of their key activities is carrying out public expenditure tracking.

31 Observations made by Mr Hebron Mwakagenda, ibid.

32 Observation made by Prof. Ruth Meena, member of the NGC representing Tanzania Gender Networking Group.

33 This is a summary of the discussions between the CSFM and various stakeholders. It provides the findings as well as recommendations made by the CSFM to Tanzania. Available as a report by the APRM National Secretariat.

26

The major issue with election expenses can be broken down

into the following issues:

• Opposition parties complain every election year about

the a lack of a level playing field to compete for seats,

alleging that the ruling party candidates use government

funds for their elections campaigns.

• Elections are generally expensive endeavours and

opposition parties are of the opinion that not much is

done to prevent corruption (especially committed by

incumbents), making it difficult for new-comers and

opposition candidates to vie for posts.

• There is alsoa feeling that theexisting lawonelection

expenses does not do much to prevent corruption and

the use of illegal funds. The Registrar of Political Parties

(who is responsible for enforcing the law) is incapable of

doing his job as the office is short of staff and resources.

• Nopoliticalpartyhasbeentakentotaskformisappropri-

ating state funds received as an election subsidy because

no audit has been carried out.

Suggested proposals36 include:

• TheofficeoftheRegistrarofPoliticalPartiesshouldbe

strengthened to enable it to discharge its responsibilities

effectively.

• The Prevention and Combating Corruption Bureau

(PCCB) should be strengthened to prosecute institutions

and individuals that contravene the Election Expenses

Act with regard to corruption.

• The Election Expenses Act should be reviewed with a

view to strengthening its mandate with respect to fighting

money-laundering in elections and related activities.

36 Proposals made during the validation workshop.

Promoting national dialogue

The self-assessment process did not unearth many new

issues. Almost all the issues in the four thematic areas

had been on the table for discussion in Tanzania. There

have been demands, for example, from various sections of

Tanzanian society calling for the government to act on several

governance areas, including rewriting the constitution to

provide for a conducive environment for a multiparty system

and safeguard other rights now denied to the people. Rights

in this case revolve around the question of independent

candidates for presidential and parliamentary elections.

People have been calling on the government to fight

corruption and especially to strengthen institutions charged

with the task of investigating and prosecuting offenders.

There have been calls on the government to review the legal

framework with a view to either repealing or amending all

laws (Acts) that have been found to be inimical to multiparty

democracy in the country. There are 40 such laws identified

by the Presidential Commission on single or multi-party

politics (1992)35 that have not been dealt with. Calls have

also been made for the government to review contracts it

signed with foreign firms, especially in the mining sector,

to ensure Tanzanians benefit from the extraction of their

natural resources. Ever since 1992 when the government

amended the constitution to re-introduce multiparty politics

there have been calls, especially from the opposition parties,

for changes to be made in respect of the composition and

independence of the National Electoral Commission, party

funding, a level playing field and election expenses.

35 For further details see F.L. Nyalali (1992), ‘Report and Recommen-dations of the Commission on the Democratic System in Tanzania’, Vol. 1, Government Printer, Dar es Salaam.

Outcome of the process

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

27

On the formation of a Government of National unity in

zanzibar, the CSAR noted that before the 2010 general

elections zanzibar was saddled with perennial post-

election conflicts. The CSAR noted also that in view of

the reconciliation initiatives of November 2009 and the

subsequent constitutional amendments to allow the

formation of a Government of National unity, the long-

standing political conflict in zanzibar seems to have been

settled. However, the NPoA proposed two actions:

1. Establish an independent statutory body to resolve intra

state conflicts.

2. Establish a mechanism to resolve the zanzibar political

impasse.

It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the Government of

National unity in zanzibar has been the result of protracted

negotiations ongoing for more than ten years. Both the ruling

party and the opposition in zanzibar came under intense

pressure to resolve the election impasse characterising the

political space in the Isles. Negotiations for resolution of the

crisis began well before the APRM process came into the

picture, but the search for peace and harmony intensified

after the process began. Two agreements (Muafaka I

signed in June 1999 and Muafaka II signed on 10 October

2001)39 were signed between the two contending parties

– Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and the Civic united Front

(CuF) – on the Isles but both failed to bring lasting peace.

The Government of National unity arrangement seems to

work and people on the Isles are, at least, at ease with one

another. The forthcoming general elections (2015) will be a

good test and indicator of how the people have endorsed the

arrangement.

The Elections Expenses Act of 2010 was a result of sustained

pressure from both the ruling party and the opposition. The

government has enacted the Elections Expenses Act that

seeks to, among other things, regulate the role of money in

electoral politics, which is one of the formidable challenges

of democracy and public accountability in Tanzania. This is

a very good law as far as elections are concerned in that

it curbs the tendency to give unfair advantage to wealthy

candidates. The CSAR observes that during the 2010 general

elections the Act’s performance was dismal in reducing the

problem of corruption and undisclosed funds. It therefore

recommended reviewing the law and regulations after the

2010 elections so as to improve its effectiveness. The NPoA

39 Muafaka I was brokered by the Commonwealth Secretariat and Muafaka II was homegrown, an initiative of the two contending parties.

The APRM process provided one more tool in the opportunity

it gave people to reiterate their calls on the government

to address what are now popularly known as governance

gaps. Although it may not be scientifically feasible to prove

that this particular outcome has been a direct result of the

APRM process, it can nonetheless be stated that a number

of issues have been addressed thanks to the government

acceding to the process. Some of the key developments are

discussed below.

Democracy and political governance

Three major issues fall under this area, namely the

constitution, the formation of a Government of National

unity in zanzibar, and the Election Expenses Act of 2010.

With reference to the constitution, the CSAR concluded

that the legal framework and institutional arrangements in

Tanzania are too restrictive to allow for a well-functioning

multiparty system. Opposition parties and civil society

or ganisations have been pointing out constitutional

deficiencies and demanding a new constitution.37 The CSAR

recommended the enactment of a new constitution and the

NPoA proposed five actions in that regard:

1. Convene a national constitutional conference.

2. Draft a new union constitution.

3. Convene a zanzibar national constitutional conference.

4. Draft a new zanzibar constitution.

5. Establish a new Constitutional Court.

Immediately after the general elections in 2010 the

government initiated a constitutional review process. First,

the government tabled a Bill in Parliament to allow for the

enactment of a law to facilitate the process of rewriting

the constitution. The law was passed and subsequently a

constitutional commission formed to, among other things,

collect views that will eventually form the basis for drafting

the new constitution. The commission is chaired by the

highly respected Judge Joseph Warioba (and one-time Prime

Minister and First Vice President), who chaired another

commission on corruption in Tanzania.38 Tanzanians are now

participating in this important process, which will culminate

in the drafting and passing of the new constitution based on

people’s interests and aspirations.

37 See Tanzania Country Self-Assessment Report, Summary of Findings (Revised Edition) August 2011, pp. 7–8.

38 For further information see J.S. Warioba (1996), ‘Report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry against Corruption’ (1&2), Dar es Salaam, Government Printer.

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA : SET T ING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA

28

not have identified new governance problems but it did

focus the spotlight on critical governance issues and may

have catalysed or sped up reforms that were already under

consideration. Statements by senior government officials after

the review reflect the continued commitment by government

to make the APRM an integral part of nation-building and

national development planning. This commitment needs to

be matched by adequate funding of the APRM, which this

assessment has found to be decreasing.

proposes to institute a mechanism for the enforcement of

the Election Expenses Act. The debate is ongoing.40

Economic governance and management

The CSAR identified three governance gaps in relation

to fighting corruption and money-laundering in general

and contracts in particular. It observes that there is

weak transparency in contracts of national interest, poor

accountability and that there is too great a monopoly of power

by bureaucrats. In its recommendations the CSAR mentions

reviewing the Investment Act and mining contracts. These

recommendations were framed when the government had

already started taking serious action in these two areas.

The government has twice formed commissions to review

several contracts in the mining sector. The corresponding

laws have also been reviewed with a view to ensuring

Tanzanians benefit from the sector more than has previously

been the case. Other contracts have also been subjected to

parliamentary probe and the result has been the exposure of

grand corruption and in one particular case, the Richmond

saga, the then Prime Minister and two other ministers had

to resign after taking political responsibility for the debacle.

Currently the debate on contracts and the accountability of

government bureaucrats is ongoing, especially in Parliament.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the APRM in Tanzania was credibly

implemented both in terms of its process and the institutional

arrangements that were put in place. Although the process

took an inordinately long time to complete, it enjoyed full

support at the highest levels of government. There is little

or no evidence to show that government unduly influenced

or crowded out other stakeholders. There appears to have

been a genuine intention on the part of government to make

the APRM a platform for meaningful dialogue about how the

country is governed.

There were attempts to sensitise the population about

the APRM. However, these efforts do not appear to have

reached broad segments of the population, with a lot of

people being unaware of the existence of the process in

Tanzania. Civil society engagement, while not blocked, may

have been hindered by limited capacity. The APRM may

40 On 10 July 2012 a seminar on Political Parties Financing and Why it Matters was held in Dar es Salaam. It drew participants from all political parties and other stakeholders from within the country and Africa. The seminar was sponsored by the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy and hosted by Tanzania Center for Democracy.