The three main proposed activities (coalition building, capacity building and raising awareness) are linked and if implemented as proposed, they actually contribute to the AfDec strategy

The proposed intervention matches and the linkages well defined

The outputs are very clear and what they lead up to.

The gaps in digital rights advocacy has been well articulated by the applicant with a clear intervention proposed

The applicant is clear on the target audience/beneficiary for the intervention and these have been identified from the problem analysis.

The activities are feasible and easy to implement within the given time frame.

There is some innovations especially the dissemination of the declaration and other IEC materials through the social media.

Budget is fine, but I dont think they need to spend money on developing a new website. That money can be used to reach-out to more people through the training and coalition building. More face-to-face meetings with regulators.

They do have the track-record in advancing digital rights.

A good proposal. It will need to make some adjustments, especially the expenditure on building a new website. This may not be necessary.

To a large extent. Litigation is key and there has already been on-going litigation against internet shutdowns in a number of countries.

The proposal to do strategic litigation is one of strategies to advance the AfDec

The planned activities and intended outputs are clear.

The analysis of the problem is quite spot on.

If this litigation is to succeed, especially at the African Court, MRA needs to strategically engage other players in the said countries, including Nigeria. In this case, they haven't clearly defined the participants.

The proposed activities are not really feasible in the scheduled time-frame. Litigating at the African Court or any regional courts, one needs to justify that he/she has exhausted the local remedies or their attempts haven't succeeded. But also, 6-months is too short a time. MRA is not in charge of the court processed. They can initiate, but cannot determine when the cases will be heard.

MRA hasn't demonstrated any innovation and exciting activities.

I think the budget is too small for the kind of cases they want to take up. Litigation, especially at the African level needs lost of resources. Research time. May be they can scale down a bit and focus on Nigeria alone.

MRA has a good track record in digital rights advocacy

I think they need to be realistic about the success of the litigation they want to undertake and scale down to one country.

The link is not very clear. There is an element of capacity building, but there is no clear link between the capacity building and how this will contribute to the implementation of the AfDec 2019-22, although this is mentioned over and over again in the narrative.

Not so well thought through. Applicants not addressing a specific goal or principle.

The activities and outputs are not clearly defined. Capacity building is fine, but to what end? That is not coming out clearly.

The objective doesn't seem to have been derived from the problem analysis. It could have been rephrased so that it points to an action that if implemented/achieved, it would address the gaps within the context.

I think for this kind of impact they want to have, targeting youth leaders would have been the best from a pool of known youth led organisations.

The number is simply too big

It is the usual stuff of capacity building.

The budget is a bit ambitious. They could have chosen to do fewer meetings, with a less number but more days. Impact

The applicant seems to have experience in advancing digital rights.

There may be less value for money in achieving the purpose of the grants.

Litigations have a strong capacity to set important judicial precedents. Afdec 2019-2022 clearly identified Litigation (Strategic) as a major strategy towards achieving the Afdec objectives

The project description quite leans on the clear objective of the African Declaration

The activities are well defined but the anticipated outputs are overly optimistic. There is no doubt that litigation is a veritable advocacy strategy but the outcome of litigation depends on variables that may not be predetermined. The proposal sounded as though the anticipated outputs are guaranteed

The proposal clearly identified the violations and a couple of problematic laws in ways that linked up clearly with its stated objectives. It failed however to make provision or accommodation for the possibility that the outcome of litigations may not go as envisaged

The proposal clearly indicated 'National Courts' 'African Commission Courts' 'Lawyers under its employment' 'volunteer lawyers on its network' It failed however to mention the 14 partner organizations it intends to work with as highlighted in the project description

It is almost impossible to achieve the stated objectives within the stated timeframe. The Court system, litigation requires time and the proposal failed to mention how it will sustain the project after the lifetime of this funding

The idea to litigate against at least 13 countries namely Ethiopia, Liberia, Sudan, Eritrea, Benin, Zimbabwe, Gabon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroun, Uganda, Burundi, and Nigeria in a single complaint is very audacious and can set a very important precedent if successful

The budget is poor on details. Travel takes 60% of the budget but didn't show enough details. For example Items B23 'Cost of travel outside Nigeria' should be more detailed. What are the travel purposes and where are the destinations - Do they have anything to do with the litigation activities proposed at the regional courts? If yes, where is the travel budget for litigation at the national courts? That bit requires more clarity.

Media Rights Agenda is well known for its work in the region and for its role in AFDEC activities - I have personally worked with the organization and we are working together on a couple of litigation in Nigeria at the moment

The proposal scores high in some parameters, while I have flagged a couple of issues too. However, I believe the work of the organization is strategic to AFDEC objectives and there is a lot of value-adds expected beyond this funding. This explains my decision, but I am of the opinion that the issues I flagged around the budget and timelines should be discussed with the applicants before approval is communicated if the application becomes successful

The project description suggests that the focus will be on awareness creation and capacity building which are 2 key parts of the AFDEC goal and strategy 2019-2022.

The project description doesn't show strong enough alignment with AFDEC overall goal and Intermediate objectives as articulated in the AFDEC strategy document 2019-2022

The proposed activities are not clearly defined and outputs are barely identified. A couple of activities listed on the budget are barely articulated in the proposal

The proposal clearly identified the problem as a lack of awareness on the subjects of Human Rights Online and the objective is defined as creating awareness among young people and enhancing their understanding of the subject

The target audience is clearly defined as 'youths', the appropriateness of the target group isn't quite strong as the project description isn't clear enough to show how the target audience will help the achievement of AFDEC objectives

Poor articulation of the different activities and timelines in the proposal makes judgment difficult

Targeting young people given Gambia's demographic realities is quite 'forward-looking'

The budget is clear except that some line items were not clearly referenced in the proposal. Also, if the application makes the cut, further clarification should be sought on budget item B41-'Monthy Advocacy Radio Programmes'

Although a new member of the coalition, the organization is well known in the space and have been engaging developments in the ICT policy space in the region for over 10 years.

This would depend on the quality of other applications and the total availability of funds for the project. I am not overly impressed by the application in terms of articulation but I could see through the prospects and I think an opportunity for feedback can help make the proposal better