Impact evaluations in development interventions has been growing in recent years. The increasing demand for evidence-based outcomes has led to a debate of what methodology is best to evaluate the impact of development interventions. Accordingly, Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) has been labeled as a gold standard for impact evaluations. The RCT method functions in a unique way, as it removes the selection bias and ensure high validity of a study. The aim of this research study is to critically assess the RCT as an alternative approach for impact assessment in relation to post-conflict countries; whether this claim holds in a conflict-affected environment or that the context-specific factors of post-conflict countries challenge the implementation of an RCT. This study implements mixed method approach by using simple descriptive statistics and semi-structured interview to answer the research questions. The findings of this study indicate that context-specific factors of post-conflict environments pose challenges on the implementation of an RCT.  As a result, these challenges threaten the quality of the RCT method which lies in reliability, internal validity and external validity. The findings also indicate that feasibility of RCT which lies in ethics, logistics and security, cannot be addressed individually, as the feasibility has a direct impact on the quality of the RCT method.