ZIMBABWE Introduction This research comes at a particularly interesting time, especially given the political developments within Zimbabwe that has given rise to the enactment of a new Constitution. The new Constitution unlike the former actually does provide for fairly progressive provisions. While the old Constitution of Zimbabwe provided for an express guarantee on freedom of expression, the same did not hold true for the right to freedom of information. Section 20 stated: Except with his own consent or by way of parental discipline, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence. However, the right to freedom of expression was characterised by broad claw back clauses that had the effect of taking away the same right. On the other hand, media freedom was also not expressly guaranteed by the constitution. Section 20 (2) (a) of the Constitution arguably abridged the exercise of freedom of expression by its numerous exceptions. It stated in part: Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be in contravention of subsection (1) to the extent that the law in question makes provision (a)In the interests of defence, public safety, public order, the economic interests of the State, public morality or public health; (c) T hat imposes restrictions upon public officers: except so far as that provisions or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. These provisions have been abused to enact laws that make it difficult for the public to obtain information from organisations, particularly public institutions, under the guise of protecting defence, economic and other interests of the nation. Some of the laws were adopted from the colonial regime unaltered, while some have been simply changed in name, in a classic tale of old wine in new bottles. However, the same cannot be said for the new constitution whose provisions on freedom of expression and access to information are clearly more comprehensive and progressive as compared to those in the previous constitution. In terms of s.62 of the new constitution: 62 Access to information (1) E very Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident, including the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by the State or by any institution or agency of government at every level, in so far as the information is required in the interests of public accountability. (2) E very person, including the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by any person, including the State, in so far as the information is required for the exercise or protection of a right. (3) E very person has a right to the correction of information, or the deletion of untrue, erroneous or misleading information, which is held by the State or any institution or agency of the government at any level, and which relates to that person. (4) L egislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, but may restrict access to information in the interests of defence, public security or professional confidentiality, to the extent that the restriction is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom. The problem is there is a plethora of existing subsidiary legislation that is clearly inconsistent with these new provisions. Notable among such laws is the Official Secrets Act of 1970,which makes it difficult for the citizens and media to access some information held by government and public institutions. Another law is the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), which restricts freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Sections of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act also make it a criminal offence to communicate in any way any statement that undermines the president, his/her office or his/her personal capacity, among other offences. Then there is also the infamous Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). In its pre-amble, the Act states it will provide members of the public with a right of access to records and information held by public bodies. It further pledges to make public bodies accountable by allowing the public the right to request correction of misrepresented personal information. However, the opposite is true as the law takes away more than it gives. Under AIPPA, applicants seeking records or information held by a public body should request the information in writing and where possible pay a reasonable fee. The head of the public body is given up to 30 days to respond. He/she is allowed to refuse to grant the requested information where it is deemed the information sought is not in the public interest. If the information involves a third party, the head of the public institution is allowed 30 more days to consult the third party before responding to the request. However, the head of a public body may also refuse a request for access to information or part of the information in which case he/she has to give the applicant reasons for such refusal. In the event the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision not to grant information, he/she may ask the Commissioner to review the public body’s decision. In essence, this constitutes a mere review process that does not guarantee access to information by the applicant. In fact, it actually makes the process of accessing information more cumbersome and complex. The process is unnecessarily bureaucratized, as it may take more than 60 days before a final decision is made on whether an applicant can have access to a record or requested information. This is one of those typical scenarios in which AIPPA begins to act as an impediment to access to information rather than foster the spirit of openness and transparency within public bodies. The process contradicts the law’s intended principle of encouraging openness and accountability in the work of the public institutions. 109