Abstract: This study underscores the need to recognise accountability as a dynamic two-way process that rests on recognising the role of the same individual/group as an "accounter" at one level and an "accountee" at another. Using this argument, elements of an effective accountability process have been identified which primarily highlight the fact that actors in an accountability relationship are also accountable for the accountability process itself. This study argues that accountability literature, because of increasing conceptual fuzziness, is at a crossroad where lack of urgency in developing a robust framework is likely to make accountability ineffectual. Relevant literature on accountability is reviewed and the need for a framework is identified. Using stakeholders’ theory as a starting point and existing literature as a guide, disparate findings are collated to present elements of a robust accountability process which can serve as the foundation of a dynamic, realistic and cohesive accountability framework. An analysis of accountability elements indicate that a vigorous accountability process should allow optimum freedom of choice to the accountee, as excessive controls not only stifle initiatives but tend to erode accountability of the accountee. The study identifies the need for role clarity and thus clear description of expectations, consequences and choices by accounters. Since an accountee’s personal moral values have a profound affect on how expectations and consequences are perceived and how accountability sources and their respective interests are optimised to their advantage, an accounter also bear some responsibility for situational shortcomings of an accountee. The study identifies distinct accountability facilitators that play an important role in improving an accountability mechanism. The focus in this study on mediators as non-stakeholders not only redefines the role of auditors but also cuts across traditional debates by allowing for the possibility of involving more qualified non-stakeholders as mediators to add credibility to the accountability process. The study distinguishes accountability medium from accountability mediators and highlights the need for refinement and expansion in accountability mediums. It identifies transparency as an objective and uniform measure of a result driven accountability process.