Many African scholars have variously and rightly criticized NEPAD. These criticisms, which form the basis of doubt as to whether it has the potential to lead the African continent out of poverty, and into prosperity. It is found out that up till this moment and even among the elite political scientist and economist, the government official, both the private sector and public sector in Nigeria, people still do not know much about NEPAD. As a matter of fact, some have not yet heard of NEPAD, people were not consulted, and neither has the sensitization been adequate.
The financing of NEPAD is vague. Part of the propositions to its financing as was explained in it document, is that the individual country's budgets should fund individual country's program in line with NEPAD program; while these countries cooperation integrates it. In other word, there should be no collective funding, nor foreign assistance in funding the program. Meanwhile it leaves those countries with more financial weight to propel the program. This lead to fear in some quarters that countries like Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt will dominate the program.
It has been noted that NEPAD will promote “inappropriate integration of our economies into the global order”. Hence, the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESSRIA) is criticized it as “neo-liberal economic policies framework, which repeats the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) package, initiated by a Nigerian military government, of the proceeding two decades and overlooks the disastrous effects of those policies”. Hence some people explained the NEPAD initiative as been located within the Washington consensus and as a result was (is) likely to perpetuate and reinforce the subjugation of Africa in the global economic system.
NEPAD has not paid enough attention to Africa's problem of mobilizing financial resources for achieving the 7% growth rate required for meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015.
It is not committed to mobilizing sufficient external resources for Africa's development. It rather argues that African countries themselves should mobilize domestic resources to most of the annual restore gap (amounting to 64 billion Dollars) through increased export earning and FDI, and by reversing the direction of capital flight from Africa. But, no mechanisms are put in place to achieve these objectives. Therefore, the whole idea would remain illusory and unachievable. It has no concrete mechanisms except (AGOA and the like) to boost African export earning by improving trade and agricultural policies of the north.
NEPAD has also paid limited attention to agriculture, a sector that provides employment opportunities for the bulk of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa. Even when it did like the Nigerian Cassava Project, little or no attention is paid to domestic need, hence working toward export at the expense of immediate hunger. It has also not paid enough attention to gender dimension of development and by implication, undermines the fact that gender inequalities mediate relationship between macroeconomic policies and poverty reduction strategies.
With the various challenges identified, one is convinced that even though NEPAD may be different in its approach and strategy from all previous plans and initiatives, in support of Africa's development, it is bond to be bedeviled by the same problems that hindered the earlier programmes. Therefore, the long-term objectives of NEPAD may be unachievable. Even the basic goals, of ensuring that the continent achieves the agreed International Development Goals (IDGs), in the nature of the program, look presumptive. Well though incomplete achievement may not be too bad after all, naturally countries view these IDGs as the basic requirements of any government to the populace and therefore it could serve as a model. However, in the prevailing circumstance, NEPAD seems not well set to achieve even the minimal level.
