SWAZILAND Introduction Swaziland adopted a new Constitution in 2005,recognising the critical role openness and access to public information play in building a transparent and accountable government. Swaziland has no legislation on access to public information. The absence of such an Act means citizens cannot easily access information held by government and public institutions. In other words, there is no legislation to compel public officials to provide people with the necessary information to make informed decisions. Access to information includes the right to receive information held by public structures, also called the Right to Know, as well as the duty of such structures to make information accessible. It is on this basis that the Media Institute of Southern Africa Swaziland (MISA Swaziland) has been conducting studies on the level of openness in public institutions in the country, as one way to instil a culture of transparency amongst public officials. Research Methodology Most public institutions in Swaziland either ignore or entirely refuse to provide information upon request. Very few take a proactive approach in disseminating information by periodically giving out information even when it has not been asked for. The research adopted quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and sought to assess the level of public access to information held by government and public institutions. In order to achieve this, MISA Swaziland analyzed and evaluated websites of government and public institutions, along with telephonic and written requests for information. This method sought to establish the level of transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. This research affirms MISA’s mandate to campaign for legislation on access to information. DATA ANALYSIS This report provides the results of ‘The Most Open and Secretive Public Institutions in Swaziland in 2013’. Rationale and Research Parameters Access to information is a fundamental human right and one of the underpinning of all other rights. MISA Swaziland selected these following government and public institutions for the study: 1. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Office (DPM) 2. Ministry of Education 3. Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs 4. Ministry of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs 5. The Elections and Boundaries Elections (EBC) 6. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) 7. Swaziland Revenue Authority (SRA) 8. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Aim of the Study The purpose of the study was to assess the level of transparency in government and public institutions in the country to back MISA Swaziland’s campaign on access to information legislation with empirical evidence. 60 Objectives of the study • To assess the level of transparency in the government and public institutions against international standards and principles on access to information • To influence the adoption of practices, laws and a culture that promotes transparency and openness in government and public institutions • To inform advocacy and interventions by MISA Swaziland and civil society across the country • To encourage citizens to exercise their fundamental right to access information generated, and help society understand the control of government institutions necessary for accessing other social economic rights study. Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine access and presence of credible and updated public information including, but not limited to, powers and functions of the institutions in question; vacancy and budgetary allocations; procurement procedures and contacts details and reports. Category 2: This category was divided into two sections namely written questionnaires and oral requests for information. These instruments were adopted to determine the ease with which public information is obtained from government and public institutions. Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to category 1 and 2 was 20 points (n = 20) each. Government ministries and departments fell into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they received: Category 1 – Websites 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.