ZIMBABWE None of the eleven websites provided incisive information on budgets and expenditure. One can therefore plausibly argue that the failure to provide comprehensive budgets, as well as failure to respond to written requests for information within the legally prescribed period by the various institutions only cemented the impression of secrecy and non- transparency of public institutions in Zimbabwe. Category 2: Written and oral requests Access Denied Out of the twelve public institutions that were surveyed, only four responded to the written requests for specific information. These were the ZIMSEC, Ministry of Information and Publicity, Ministry of Tourism and the Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC). The Ministry of Information and Publicity, SRC, the Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council (ZIMSEC), the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA), and the Ministry of Tourism responded telephonically acknowledging receipt of correspondence before undertaking to respond to the requests in writing. Of these, only ZIMRA failed to subsequently furnish its written response. All the four institutions that responded in writing comprehensively answered the questions proffered. In conclusion, the ratio of those public bodies that obliged to provide information in juxtaposition to those that did not generally reveals difficulties in accessing information held by public institutions in Zimbabwe. It shows that these institutions are overly secretive and not forthcoming with information, making it very difficult for citizens to exercise their constitutional right to access to information held by public bodies. The most secretive and most open institutions in Zimbabwe are named at the end of this document after a comparative survey of all the institutions. 111