INTRODUCTION Botswana is still without a freedom of information act, despite the fact that this freedom is assured in section 12 of the constitution. Attempts to pass such a law have always been impeded by the ruling Botswana Democratic Party. In fact, the current president led the withdrawal of the opposition-sponsored Private Members Bill in 2011, assuring that a new and improved bill would be brought before parliament. This has not yet happened. The difficulty of accessing information continues to be a blot in the country’s democratic credentials. Without a law that facilitates access to information, there are a number of initiatives and legislations which restrict this access. The Public Service Act is one such example. The act makes it a dismissible offense for a public officer to disclose work-related information. This amounts to censorship as workers are unable to raise the alarm when they come across information that is in the public’s interest. Under this act, whistle blowing becomes a crime. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has become more secretive and openly introduced the Emergency Powers Act, which contains clauses that specifically prevent access and relay of information. For example, sections 30 (3) and 31 (3) criminalise the relay of COVID-19 related information from any source besides the government or the World Health Organisation. While the open intention was to curb circulation of misinformation, this act has been used to protect the image of the government and, in particular, the president. The police have used the current State of Emergency to make arrests, some of which are regarded as political. An example is the arrest and detention of Botswana Patriotic Front spokesperson, Justice Motlhabani, on allegations that he was responsible for administering a Facebook page which carried negative reports of the president. Motlhabani is currently released on bail. In a press statement, the police warned the public against publishing information that is ‘offensive’ to the leadership. This led to an enraged commentary on social media and radio stations, as people asked why the police were going beyond their expected mandate. RETURN TO CONTENTS PAGE It is also worth noting that parliament recently rejected a motion by Dithapelo Keorapetse, an opposition member of parliament, in which he called for the repeal of the Media Practitioners Act, which passed through parliament and assented in 2008. The ruling party rejected the motion, despite their undertaking to repeal it in their 2019 election manifesto. This was the second time the repeal was rejected in parliament. The act is considered draconian by observers and the media. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH PARAMETERS AIM OF THE STUDY This survey targeted 10 public organisations to ascertain how responsive they are to information inquiries by the public. The survey was carried out from June to August 2020. Written requests for information were dispatched to these selected organisations. The purpose of the study is to provide an informed picture of the state of access to information in Botswana. The results of the study are expected to motivate transparency and open government. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY y To determine which organisations (both government and public) provide information to citizens upon request, timeously and with relative ease. y To determine which organisations (both government and public) utilise online platforms to promote access to information. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research adopts both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, and seeks to evaluate the level of public access to information held by government and public organisations. Each MISA Chapter conducts research by evaluating the websites of government and public organisations along with submitting written requests for information. This method seeks to establish the transparency and efficiency of government and public organisations in providing information to the public. 7 BOTSWANA TRANSPARENCY ASSESSMENT REPORT