ZAMBIA Introduction The current Zambian Constitution is inadequate with regard to provisions on the right of citizens to access public information. Article 20 (1) states,’ Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and opinions without interference, freedom to impart and communicate information without interference, whether the communication is to the public generally or to any other person or class of persons, and freedom from interference with his correspondence’. It is clear that access to information (ATI) held by government institutions is not expressly provided for in the Constitution. Further, the constitutional provision does not give adequate instruction or direction to both civil servants and citizens on what type of information they can give or demand, hence the need for a clear ATI Law. The Zambian ATI Draft Bill has been pending since 2002, even though calls for the law to be enacted started as early as the 1990s, when government set up the Media Reform Committee. This was three years after Zambia had been re-democratised. Several governments, including the one that re-introduced democracy in Zambia, have made attempts to overhaul legal provisions around ATI, but have failed to enact a law. The ATI Bill was presented for a second reading in the Zambian Parliament in 2002, after which the Bill was withdrawn for ‘further consultation’. Since then, the draft has undergone two processes of redrafting, in 2007 and 2012 respectively. With the coming into power of a new political party, following the 2011 general elections, hope was reinvigorated. In its manifesto the ruling party outlined the need to enact the ATI Bill and addressed sections in the Official Secrets Act that conflict with the requirements of an ATI law. Several promises to enact legislation have been made. Most of them were announced in the year 2012, while in 2013, government assured the public on several occasions that the law would be enacted by June. However, government subsequently pronounced the ATI Bill would be tabled before Cabinet as part of the implementation process. However, this was only stated weeks after Parliament had resumed sitting. While the Constitution-drafting process presents a chance for Zambia to expressively provide for the right of access to information, it remains to be seen whether the initial provisions in the First Draft Constitution, launched in April 2012, will be maintained. The first draft explicitly provides for ATI under Article 37(1a), which provides,’ A citizen has the right of access to information held by the state’. While this sounds promising, Zambia has undergone several constitutional review attempts, resulting in draft constitutions containing ATI provisions, none of which have been adopted to date. It is important to point out that about five attempts have been made to review the constitution. Therefore, the effort that re-commenced in early 2011, and produced a 2012 Draft, is being closely followed, but with certain degree of mistrust – as the saying goes ‘once beaten twice shy’. Research Methodology Introduction 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, the researcher was required to evaluate 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 and 18points respectively (n = 20, n =18). Please note that MISA Zambia only marked respondents on 9 criteria instead of 10 so category 2 is marked out of 18 instead of 20 in line with the regionally applied methodology. 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 (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 (group bands have been changed to account for MISA Zambia’s marking of category 2 out of 18 instead of 20) Part 1 Group 1; (0 – 5): Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2; (6– 12): Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3; (13 – 18): Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. 97