SWAZILAND 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. the Chairman of the Commission is necessary before the release of information. • The website of the SRA ranked best out of the institutions evaluated, with the most valid public information available. 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. 1.5 Limitations of the study The selected government and public institutions were identified randomly by MISA Swaziland. However, the government ministries and departments that were selected play an extremely important role in the running of the country. Summary of Key findings Website Analysis (Category 1) • All eight institutions that were selected for this study had websites. All except one (the Swaziland Revenue Authority) website are hosted on the website of the government. • The site for the Elections and Boundaries Commission contained the least practical information. • The websites of three institutions were not updated (Ministry of Education; Ministry of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs; & Human Rights Commission – HRC); three were partially updated (DPM’s office; EBC; & Ministry of Foreign Affairs); and only two were updated on a regular basis (Ministry of Justice and Swaziland Revenue Authority – SRA). Written Requests for Information (Category 2) Access Denied • All ministries and departments selected by MISA Swaziland for the study asked for questionnaires. • Out of eight institutions written requests were sent, only four replied, namely the DPM’s office, SRA, Ministry of Sports, Culture and Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. • Two bodies (the HRC and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) asked for a second written request to be submitted -both via email. The ministries requested that electronic messages be re-directed to the most senior officials of the respective institution – i.e. the Commissioner of the Commission for Human Rights, and the Information Officer for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Despite four visits, neither Ministry replied. • The EBC orally stated that a written request has been prepared, however, as dictated by their internal protocol, prior approval by 61