NAMIBIA Introduction In Namibia, access to information (ATI) is limited by the lack of an ATI law. The Constitution, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but does not expressly enshrine the right to access to information. Namibia’s legal environment is also predominantly skewed in favor of promoting secrecy, with apartheid legislation, such as the Protection of Information Act 1982, still awaiting repeal. 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. Namibia further lacks a protection of whistleblowers legislation, which can be seen as a barrier to citizens reporting corruption, as they will not receive any protection from the state. Part 2: Oral 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. Research Methodology The study was conducted between May and July 2013 by MISA Namibia to assess the level of transparency in Government and Public Institutions. The research adopted both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. Questionnaires were sent out to eight selected institutions, inclusive of four ministries and four parastatals. The aim was to establish the transparency and accessibility of information of the chosen Government and Public institutions. Websites were critiqued on the usefulness and relevance of their information and how well they were organized. Written requests primarily entailed sending e-mails requesting information from the selected institutions seeking specific information. Oral requests were done telephonically. DATA ANALYSIS The total number of points allocated to category 1 and 2 is 20 points (n = 20) each. Ministries and institutions will fall in to one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they receive. Category 1 – Websites Here the websites of Government and Public Institutions are evaluated to establish accessibility, data credibility and relevance given on the website. Group 1; (0 – 6): Absence of a website or an extremely poor website that contains no 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. The following Government Ministries and Public Institutions were chosen at random to be surveyed: 1. Road Fund Administration 2. National Housing Enterprise 3. Ministry of Youth National Service, Sport and Culture 4. Ministry of Safety And Security 5. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry 6. Motor Vehicle Accident Fund 7. National Planning Commission 8. NamWater Summary of Key Findings Overall, MISA Namibia found that there is not necessarily resistance from public institutions to provide information to the public. It is mainly dependent on whether there is a communication person employed, and how professional or committed to their work this individual is. Special mention must be made of the MVA Fund’s public relations officer, Catherine Shipushu, who paid special attention to our researcher by giving him tips on punctuality and even giving him an assignment on improved internet research. The Ministry of Safety and Security as well as the Ministry of Youth National Service, Sport and Culture both lack a communication’s person, which is not unique to them. Government departments still have to recognise the importance of ensuring that the public are informed about issues that directly or indirectly affect them. Category 2 - Requests for information This category was divided into two parts, written questionnaires and oral request. This was done to determine how easily the public could access information of Government and Public Institutes by means of written or oral requests. 41