ZIMBABWE However, it is clearly imperative these laws are realigned to the constitution so they are in sync with the country’s supreme law. Rationale and research parameters Governments and public institutions are responsible for facilitating the right to access to information and there are two key aspects to this responsibility: enabling citizens to access information upon request; and proactively disseminating important information. In July 2013, the Media Institute of South Africa Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA-Zimbabwe) assessed the level of accessibility to information held by government and public institutions in Zimbabwe. The public institutions assessed were randomly selected with particular attention paid to the relevance and nature of information these institutions hold. The public institutions assessed include the following; 1. The Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council (ZIMSEC) 2. The Zimbabwe United Passenger Company (ZUPCO) 3. The Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) 4. The Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) 5. Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality 6. The Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA) 7. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Gender and Community Development (WAG) 8. The Ministry of Home Affairs (HO) 9. The Ministry of Media and Information Publicity 10. The Ministry of Education 11. Ministry if Higher and Tertiary Education 12. Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenization and Empowerment Category 1: Websites Group 1: (0 – 6) Absence of a website or an extremely poor website that contains nothing or almost no relevant public information. Group 2: (7 – 13) Average website that contains some relevant public information Group 3: (14 – 20) Well organized, transparent website that provides a good amount of relevant public information. Category 2: Requests for information Part 1: Written request for information Group 1: (0 – 6) Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2: (7 – 13) Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. Part 2: Written request for information Group 1: (0 – 6) Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy Group 2: (7 – 13) Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. In addition, MISA-Zimbabwe assessed the websites of these institutions to establish the nature, relevance and organisation of the information uploaded on the respective websites. Limitations of study Given the limited timeframe that was set aside for the survey it was not feasible to put to test the openness of more government and public institutions. Qualitative data: It is subject to personal interpretation. Research Methodology Summary of Key Findings The research adopted both the qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. MISA-Zimbabwe sent written requests to the twelve chosen institutions. The research data was divided into two categories. Using clearly defined evaluation criteria, Category 1 entailed assessing the websites for the chosen public institutions to establish which among them has the most or least efficiently organized provision of public information. Category 2 entailed sending written requests for information to the same public institutions seeking specific information. Category 1: Websites Of the twelve public institutions surveyed, eleven of the institutions had websites although the effectiveness in terms of content management differed. The only public institution without an accessible website was the Zimbabwe United Passenger Company (ZUPCO). Data analysis Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine the accessibility of public information. Category 2: Submission of oral and written reports in order to determine the ease with which public information is obtained from government and public institutions. 110 Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to category 1 and 2 is 20 points (n = 20) each. Ministries and institutions will fall into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they score. Eight of the eleven bodies surveyed had websites with relatively updated and organised information. These included the Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority, Sports and Recreation Commission, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education and Ministry of Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment. Although the websites of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture were functional, they had clear content management problems, such as poor website structuring and inadequate information.