ZIMBABWE Under AIPPA, applicants seeking records or information held by a public body should request information in writing as provided by Section 6 and where possible, pay a reasonable fee as outlined Section 7 of the Act. Section 5 of AIPPA provides for the right to information and stipulates the following; (1) Subject to Section ten, every person shall have a right of access to any record, including a record containing personal information, that is in the custody or under the control of a public body: Provided that such access shall not extend to excluded information. (2) Where information can be extracted from a record that contains excluded information, an applicant may have access to the part of the record that is not excluded information. (3) Nothing contained in this Act shall confer any rights to information or to a record to— (a) a person who is not a citizen of Zimbabwe, or is not regarded as permanently resident in Zimbabwe by virtue of the Immigration Act [Chapter 4:02], or is not the holder of a temporary employment or residence permit or students permit issued in terms of that Act; (b) any mass media service which is not registered in terms of this Act, or to a broadcaster who is not registered in terms of the Broadcasting Services Act [Chapter 12:06]; and (c) any foreign state or agency thereof. While seemingly straightforward, the practical exercise of this right is in essence ridden with latent bottlenecks that make the right difficult to enjoy. For example, according to Section 8 (1) the head of a public body is given up to 30 days to respond. Section 8 (1)reads: The head of a public body shall take every reasonable step to assist an applicant and shall, subject to Section eleven or twelve, respond as soon as is reasonably possible in the circumstances, but not later than thirty days, to each request for access to a record. In circumstances where a written request for information has been made in terms of Section 6, the head of a public body shall be obliged to respond to the request outlining the following: (a) whether or not he is entitled to access to the record or a part of the record; and (b) the place where, time when and manner in which such access will be given. (2) Where the head of a public body refuses access to a record or part of a record, he shall inform the applicant of the reasons therefor. Further, the head of a public body may refuse to grant the requested information where the information is deemed to not be in the public’s interest. If the information involves a third party, the head of the public institution is allowed to extend the response time by an additional 30 days in order to consult the third party before responding to the request, as stipulated under Section 11, which reads: (1)The head of a public body may extend the time for responding to a request by a further period not exceeding thirty days or, with the Commission’s permission, for a longer period if(a) the applicant does not give sufficient detail to enable the public body to identify the requested record; or (b) a large number of records is requested or is required to be searched, and meeting the time limit will unreasonably interfere with the operations of the public body; or (c) more time is needed to consult with a third party affected by the request or another public body before the head of the public body can decide whether or not to give the applicant access to the requested record. However, the head of a public body may also refuse all or part of a request for access to information, in which case he/she has to give the applicant reasons for such refusal in accordance with Section 11 (2), which states: (2) Where the time is extended in terms of subsection (1), the head of the public body shall inform the applicant(a) of the reason for such extension; and (b) when he should expect a response In the event the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision not to grant information, he/she may ask the Commission to review the public institution’s decision as provided for under Section 9 (3), which reads: An applicant whose request for a record or part of a record has been refused by the head of a public body may request the Commission to review the public body’s decision. In essence, this constitutes a mere review process that does not guarantee access to information to the applicant. In fact, it makes the process of accessing information more cumbersome and complex. Sections 15-34 deal with various categories of protected information which cannot be disclosed. The process is unnecessarily bureaucratised, as it may take 60 days or more (if the Commission deems it fit) before a final decision is made on whether or not an applicant can have access to a record or requested information. This is a typical scenario in which AIPPA is an impediment to access to information, instead of fostering the spirit of openness and transparency within public bodies. This process contradicts the law’s intended principle of encouraging openness and accountability of public institutions. In practice, some public officials take advantage of the bureaucratic nature of the legislation to frustrate requests for public information. The law has also disempowered junior public officials, who are now fearful of disclosing any information to citizens or the media. It is therefore not surprising that a culture of fear and unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles remains. Organisations that have public relations/communications officers still asked the researchers to contact the Chief Executive Officer in order to access information, a clear sign that these officers do not have full autonomy to disclose public information. 115