"...the NEPAD Framework Document and the Declaration identity, among others, democracy and good political governance as preconditions and foundations of sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. The overall objective is to consolidate a constitutional political order in which democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law, separation of powers and effective, responsive public service are realised to ensure sustainable development and a peaceful and stable society," NEPAD/HSGIC-03-2003/APRM/OSCI, 9 March 2003 The above quote has been adopted by the 'APRM Country Review Report and Programme of Action of the Republic of Ghana, January 2006' to introduce its Chapter 2, which talks about democracy and political governance.

In the first part of this piece published on Wednesday September 17 with heading: Sierra Leone: The need for APRM (Part I), I explained what APRM is. But for the purpose of emphasis, let me reiterate here that the APRM, to which Sierra Leone committed itself since July 2004, is a mutually agreed instrument voluntarily acceded to by member states of the AU as a self-monitoring mechanism.

Perhaps, better explained in the words of former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, then chairperson for the APRM Forum: "The APRM provides an opportunity for the systematic assessment of the performance of a state by its peers with the ultimate goal of helping it to adopt best practices, improve its policy making process and comply with established standards and principles. In the final analysis, this will enhance political stability and socio-economic development the APRM should not be interpreted as a score card of a pass or fail nature, or as a new conditionality for donor assistance. Rather, it is an instrument for continuous improvement of national policies and rebuilding a consensus among all stakeholders." I have chosen to start this second part of my article by looking at the review process, preliminary phase or 'Support Mission.' However, let me hasten to state here that I have deliberately restricted the contents of both parts I & II of my article to explaining the APRM process. This is ultimately to attract appreciation. Ideally, no sooner people, indeed the government and related establishments, understood the process than I could concentrate on Sierra Leone, including its determination to be peer reviewed.

Meanwhile, there is already a country support mission, which primary purpose is to 'ensure a common understanding of the philosophy, rules, and processes of the APRM' and to help countries who need support with 'aspects of the national processes'. In essence, the media only complement its efforts. The guidelines further specify what the former might mean, namely help with 'institutional and organizational arrangements for involving major stakeholders' in the review process, with the development of a realistic Programme of Action (POA) and with expertise not readily available in the country. In order to do this they would meet with the authorities in the country responsible for the APR process (for instance the ministry of presidential and public affairs in Sierra Leone) and with representatives of all major stakeholders.

Stage one The first stage is preparatory for both the APR Secretariat and the national authorities. For example, Sierra Leone has to answer a detailed questionnaire, on the basis of which a self-assessment is completed.

The APRM Secretariat for its part would make a background study of the country's governance and development. After this has been shared with the country and other partner institutions and after the self-assessment has been made, the country in question would issue a draft programme of action. In the development of this POA, the participation of all stakeholders must be ensured, including trade unions, women, youth, civil society, private sector, rural communities and professional associations.

In the POA, it would suggest a time-bound framework for implementing the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. After those programme of action and questionnaire have been submitted to the APR Secretariat, the Secretariat would draw up an Issues Paper. It is possible that on the basis of this paper the Secretariat would decide that certain issues need a more in-depth assessment ('Technical assessments') before stage two is initiated. If there are Technical Assessments, these can lead to the update of the Issues Paper and possibly the Programme of Action. The APRM Secretariat also makes a suggestion to the APR Panel regarding the composition of the Country Review team.

Stage two In the second stage the review team would visit the country and 'carry out the widest possible range of consultations with the government, officials, political parties, parliamentarians and representatives of civil society organizations (including the media, academia, trade unions, business, professional bodies)'.

Stage three In the third stage, the draft report is compiled. This report is based on the findings of the review team during their visit, the background research the APR Secretariat has made and on the Issues paper compiled by the APR Secretariat. The draft is then discussed with the government concerned. These discussions are meant 'to ensure the accuracy of the report and to provide the Government with an opportunity both to react to the APR Team's findings and to put forward it's own views on how the identified shortcomings may be addressed'. The report is supposed to evaluate a country's performance by taking into account the commitments made in the draft Programme of Action. It would also state what the remaining weaknesses are and recommend further action for the final Programme of Action.

Stage four The review team's report and the final Programme of Action compiled by the Government, is sent to the APR Secretariat and the APR Panel. Then the report is submitted to the APR Forum of participating heads of state and government for consideration and formulation of actions deemed necessary.

It is at this stage that the actual 'peer pressure' is applied if necessary. Here the full quotation of the APRM base document is in its place. For instance if the Government of the Sierra Leone shows a demonstrable will to rectify the identified shortcomings, then it would be incumbent upon participating governments to provide what assistance they can, as well as to urge donor governments and agencies also to come to the assistance of the country.

'However, if the necessary political will is not forthcoming from the Government, the participating states should first do everything practicable to engage it in constructive dialogue, offering in the process technical and other appropriate assistance. If dialogue proves unavailing, the participating Heads of State and Government may wish to put the Government on notice of their collective intention to proceed with appropriate measures by a given date. The interval should concentrate the mind of the Government and provide a further opportunity for addressing the identified shortcomings under a process of constructive dialogue. All considered, such measures should always be utilized as a last resort.' This is exactly what some of us are concerned about.

Stage five According Paragraph 25 of the base document the report 'should be formally and publicly tabled in key regional and sub-regional structures such as the Pan-African Parliament, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Peace and Security Council (PSC) [inaugurated in May 2004], and the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) of the African Union.' This is when the report will be publicly made available.

After the review A country is then supposed to implement its Programme of Action. Implicit in the whole APRM formula is that foreign donors would kick in here and bear some, if not a large part, of the cost connected to the implementation of this plan of action that is supposed to improve the identified shortcomings in governance.

After this base review is concluded, a periodic review should follow every two to four years.

Perhaps the third and final part of this article would be published by early next week. By which time I would have joined our readership to explore the reasons for Sierra Leone to be peer reviewed almost five years after it sworn to do so.