They will neither visit prisons nor knock at the doors of presidential palaces to get first hand information on how African leaders run their countries.
But a panel of evaluators, given the job of reviewing the governance and human rights records of African governments, say they have a credible process that is insulated from political manipulation and promise to tell it as it is.
Under an economic rescue plan, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) launched two years ago, African leaders agreed to tackle problems like corruption, civil strife and outdated infrastructure in return for more aid and foreign investment.
A key part of the plan is the so-called "peer-review" system, where governments are subjected to examination on commitment to democracy, peace and security, economic policy and business environment by a panel of seven eminent Africans.
Analysts say the peer review is going to be the yardstick with which donors are going to judge whether Africans are serious about NEPAD, which is already facing criticism that it is taking too long to show concrete results.
For donors and investors to consider the reviews credible, they should not vary too much from what the international community thinks about a country, one diplomat in Kigali said.
A situation like last year's elections in Rwanda where African monitors gave a highly rosy view of the polls in contrast with the gloomy picture painted by Western observers, would be unfortunate, he said.
It remains to be seen how frank, in-depth and critical these reports will be, he said.
But Anglique Savane, chair of the panel of experts, said such fears were unwarranted because her team is fiercely independent and will not succumb to any pressures.
"We are not bound by any of these heads of state, so I have the right to say what I think ... they cannot ask me or any of our panel members to change our views," she said in Kigali after attending a heads of state summit to launch the scheme.
"We are controversial people back at home and we cannot be manipulated," said Savane.
So far only 17 of the African Union's 53 member countries have agreed to be peer reviewed. Oil producer Angola is the latest inclusion.
Analysts say it will be interesting to see the evaluators report on Angola, where international agencies say as much as US$4 billion in oil revenues -- equivalent to 10 percent of GDP -- has been lost to graft over the past five years.
They have also set their eyes on Nigeria, where corruption has eroded billions of dollars in oil earnings and Zimbabwe, where human rights activists say abuses have escalated rapidly since disputed 2002 presidential elections won by President Robert Mugabe.
Academics say elections in Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, Botswana and South Africa this year will also signal whether Africans are prepared to hold free and fair polls and open the closely guarded political space.
The first to be scrutinized is Ghana with preparatory work due to start this month in Rwanda, Kenya and Mauritius shortly after. The reviews will take six to nine months.
The evaluators will send questions and later visit countries for three weeks to talk to the government, opposition politicians, civic bodies and donors before they make a report.
Savane, a Senegalese political activist, said the process will ensure that the end product is credible without necessarily being overly intrusive.
"We are not an inspector-general," she said when asked whether the team will visit prisons to ascertain the truth.
"We will be dealing with the human rights groups. Do you think they will shut up and let us spend three weeks without telling us anything -- no way!"
Critics say the problem with the scheme is that it is voluntary, meaning countries with the worst records of democracy will avoid it. Another downside is that the reports will not be made public unless the heads of state agree.
Savane, who headed a UN peer program on adolescents, said the spirit of the review is not to chastise.
"The aim is not to put at the forefront the weakness of a country, the aim is to help the country to change," she said.
But heads of state will act against a government, pulling in sanctions and other measures, if a president refuses to embrace the changes recommended by the peers, Savane said.
The backers of the scheme say they are not surprised by the relatively small number of countries to have joined the group so far.
The fact that countries have to pay at least US$100,000 to participate coupled with a concern that the process gives opposition and civic groups too much voice will put some leaders off -- as will the thought of being sat down by fellow presidents, questioned and to be told what to do.
Officials say some countries have adopted a wait and see attitude to see what benefits come to those who have signed up.
"Our poor countries have been cautious embarking on new innovative things ... The main thing is that we must implement the peer review so that we can show what the benefits are going to be," NEPAD head Wiseman Nkuhlu told reporters.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS