Afri map tanzania aprm

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA
SETTING THE GOVERNANCE AGENDA
Professor Athumani Juma Liviga
November 2013

THE APRM PROCESS IN TANZANIA: SET TING 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.
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,
OSIEA
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.
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

iii
Contents
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

Acronyms and abbreviations
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
iv

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
Summary of the APRM process
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

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.
2
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.

Findings and recommendations
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.
3
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

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;
• The APRM process has brought to the fore governance
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

The New Partnership for Africa’s
Development and the APRM
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
5
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

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:
• a national APRM focal point, ideally a person at ministerial
level or in the office of the presidency, and reporting
directly to the head of state;
• a national commission or governing council responsible
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;

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.

Background and chronology of the process
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

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
9
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

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.
10

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.
11
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 (both Union and Zanzibar) 4
• Political parties (both ruling and opposition) 2
• Religious organisations (Muslim and Christian) 2
• Media 1
• Farmers’ associations 1
• Private sector (Mainland and Zanzibar) 4
• People with disability 1
Institutional set up
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

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.

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.
13
The APRM process
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.

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

economic, political and cultural processes. They were
selected on a transparent and competitive basis.7
15
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.

16
convened in April 2009 and participants came from the
following institutions:
• APRM TZ (NGC and Secretariat) 34
• Academia 10
• Politician/MPs 12
• Religious leaders 5
• Media 22
• Cooperatives 8
• Union Government 50
• Government of Zanzibar 14
• Gender-based CSOs 12
• Other CSOs 31
• Youth leaders 6
• Trade unions 13
• Private sector 12
• People with disabilities 8
• Representatives from regions 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

envisioned that the country would have been peer reviewed
in January 2010.
17
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.

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:
• Dr Rachel Mukamunana (Rwanda) – CRM coordinator for
Tanzania
• Prof. Ahmad Mohidin (Kenya) – APRM Strategic Partner
(UNDP)
• Dr Francis Chigunta (Zambia) – APRM consultant
• Dr Thomas Kibua (Kenya) – APRM consultant
• Prof. Ameze (Nigeria) – APRM consultant
• Prof. Adele Jinadu (Nigeria) – APRM consultant
• Ms Arlete Yamek (Gabon) – APRM Secretariat
• Prof. Abdul Aziz Jolish (Sierra Leone) – APRM consultant
• Dr Annie Chikwanha (Zimbabwe) – APRM consultant
• Ms Candy W. Okoboi (Uganda) – APRM consultant
• Dr Bernard Dosah (Ghana) – APRM UNECA
• Dr Kojo Busia (Ghana) – APRM UNECA
• Ms Nancy Kgengweyane (Botswana) – APRM UNDP
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

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
19
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.

Evaluation of the CSAR and NPoA
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 macroeconomic
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.
• Chapters 1 and 2 provide background and context of the
APRM process in Tanzania;
• Chapters 3 through 6 cover the main findings in the four
thematic areas – democracy and political governance,
economic governance and management, corporate gov-ernance
and socio-economic development;
• Chapter 7 is about overall conclusions and recommenda-tions
and;
• Chapter 8 is the national plan of action (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

that of changing mind-sets and the lack of awareness of
citizens legal rights.27
21
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.

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.
22

Strengths and weaknesses of the
APRM process in Tanzania
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.
23
Analysis of the Focal Point
As the Focal Point, the MFAIC has made a tremendous contribution
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.
• The government did not inhibit the process in any way
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.
• As individuals some of the members of these institutions
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

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:
• The Prime Minister is in charge overall and responsible
for the implementation of government decisions.
• The Prime Minister 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

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.

Outcome of the process
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 also a feeling that the existing law on election
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.
• No political party has been taken to task for misappropri-ating
state funds received as an election subsidy because
no audit has been carried out.
Suggested proposals36 include:
• The office of the Registrar of Political Parties should be
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.

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
27
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
organisations
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.

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.

Afri map tanzania aprm

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Afri map tanzania aprm

Afri map tanzania aprm