TANZANIA “The government will do everything possible to make sure that the bill is enacted and implemented accordingly”. Still there is nothing much to be proud of. The Bill has been shifted from one Ministry to another; currently it falls under the Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs (MOCLA). “Rights, duties and sanctions of both the government and the general public will be included in the new Access to Information Law to be drafted soon”, promises another Minister, Mathias Chikawe.“There must be sanctions to those who refuse to give information and we will make sure this appears clearly in the new law”, he once affirmed when speaking to the members of the Coalition on Right to Information (RTI), at his offices in Dar es Salaam earlier this year. Chikawe agreed to the fact that the government has heaps of information that need to reach to the general public, but due to one reason or another, this information does not get to the intended audience, and thus deters public participation in the activities and decisions geared to the development of the country.” We need the Access to Information (ATI) Law to help us with this and it is the idea behind the government signing the Open Government Partnership initiative. We want public information to reach the grassroots, and not just reach the public but it must be done in a transparent manner all the way”, Chikawe said. He further stated that for the Law to be a reality, government participation and involvement of the general public is very crucial. According to Chikawe, commentaries made by Civil Society, and especially the Draft Bill by the Coalition, are on his table for deliberation. However, without the inclusion of the public in the drafting process, the draft bill will be finalised lacking the input of the general public. It is the hope of Tanzanian FOI stakeholders that positive examples such as Rwanda, can serve as a benchmark for our country’s establishment of a much-awaited Law, which will act as a catalyst for transparency and accountability. Rationale and Research Parameters MISA Tanzania joined other MISA chapters in participating in a study to establish the most open and secretive government institutions. The study started on the 28th May and was concluded on 19th of June 2013. Four of the eight participating institutions were randomly picked depending on the relevance of the work the institutions are mandated to do for the country. Selected Ministries included: 1. Ministry of Health and Social Welfare 2. Ministry of Energy and Minerals 3. Ministry of Food and Agriculture 4. Ministry of Water and Irrigation Selected agencies included: 5. Social Security Regulatory Authority (SSRA) 6. Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) 7. Tanzania Foods and Drugs Authority (TFDA) 8. Medical Stores Department (MSD) Research Methodology The research adopted qualitative and quantitative 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, a research was conducted by evaluating the websites of government and public Institutions, along with submitting oral and written reports requesting information. This method sought to establish the transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. 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 of 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 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 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. Category 2 - Written request / Oral request Part 1 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. 81