ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE INTRODUCTION Zimbabwe has been attempting to chart a new way forward under the mantra of the ‘new dispensation’ geared towards respecting the Constitution and the rights of its citizens. Since the military-assisted transition in November 2017, the governing party Zanu PF and the government, particularly the Office of the President, has been on a new trajectory of projecting an image of transparency by issuing out frequent press statements on some issues of national importance. The new president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is active on social media, which was unheard of under the former Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe. During the election period, the government did not switch off the internet even at the height of gross human rights abuses, when six people were shot by the military during the violent demonstrations that rocked Harare on 1 August 2018. While these might appear as good indicators for the enjoyment of access to information in the country, does this in reality mean the access to information environment has improved? Is the image of an open environment constructed or real? This might not be the case as requests for information from various public institutions by the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA Zimbabwe) pointed to a culture of inefficiency and entrenched secrecy in public institutions. At the point of finalising this report, President Mnangagwa had filed papers against MISA Zimbabwe’s application to allow broadcasters to live-stream the hearing of the 2018 Election Constitutional Court challenge by opposition MDCAlliance leader Nelson Chamisa. President Mnangagwa and the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC), opposed MISA-Zimbabwe’s efforts. This points towards an administration that is still trying to stifle access to information and transparency. It is poignant to note that the pre-30 July 2018 election period increased demand for information, notably from institutions such as the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) and Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) who were supposed to release information that citizens needed to be able to exercise their rights. Political parties were not happy with the ZEC’s low levels of transparency; for example, there were delays in making the voters’ roll public. The elections body also delayed publishing names of election officers as well as availing other information such as who would be responsible for printing the ballot papers. The ZEC also refused to release a voters’ roll that had photographs of citizens. However, the body did eventually release the voters’ roll in electronic form at a fee of $2. However, there were complaints that the information was not easily accessible nor usable, especially for people with disabilities, such as blind citizens, who also have a right to access to information. 102 Meanwhile, while a substantial amount of the information requests sought by MISA Zimbabwe during the period under review were not denied, these requests were not fully met. Requests for information were referred to other offices in the respective institutions. The trend seemed to be that information deemed as not being ‘sensitive,’ was not granted. Determining what is deemed ‘sensitive’ information is often the arbitrary prerogative of the officials involved. The election also saw foreign journalists being allowed to operate in the country. There were, however, reports of attacks on journalists by the military as well as the disruption of an MDC-Alliance press conference by the police. Police interference with the press conference only stopped with the intervention of the Acting Minister of Information Khaya Moyo. Generally, however, the environment was safe for journalists. There were price reductions for online data, which is a positive step towards improving access to information on the internet. Despite increasing connectivity among Zimbabweans, especially in urban areas, public institutions still have poorly managed websites as well as inefficient mechanisms to provide information online. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2002 (AIPPA), which also outlines a lengthy period in which public officials may respond to information requests, has become outdated and does not reflect the current reality and context of high connectivity. The AIPPA must be reviewed to reflect the realities of evolving information communities. Under the veil of ‘good soundbites’ and ‘change’ in the new dispensation, very little has changed in terms of how public institutions process information requests. While the attitudes of some public officials have improved compared to previous years, websites remain poorly managed. Almost all public institutions that were studied remain inefficient; none of them were able to provide the requested information. MISA was involved in campaigns and advocacy efforts with the Parliament of Zimbabwe (PoZ) and the ZRP, which yielded fruits as the ZRP in particular, improved its operations by establishing a WhatsApp group (ZRP Media Desk) with local journalists as well as opening a Twitter account. The ZRP also has a television programme that provides updates on the state of policing in the country. Access to information was also tested during the election campaign period as opposition parties demanded that the ZEC release photographs of registered voters on the voters’ roll. The political parties contented that provision of the voters’ roll in such a format would enhance transparency, which had been a fiercely contested issue in previous elections, thereby undermining the credibility of the outcome of past elections. However, the High Court ruled that there was no need to release the photographs to people who did not need them. In another case yet to be decided, a citizen took the Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ), Zanu PF and the ZEC to court after he received