ZIMBABAWE One is likely to get a somewhat better response from institutions if it is mentioned that the request was made by a journalist as opposed to an ordinary citizen seeking information. This has also been the case in past studies. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Category 1: Website Analysis Rationale and ReseaRch PaRaMeteRs The aim of this study was to assess the state of access to information in the country. Citizens require information to make informed choices and decisions, and this survey sought to determine whether information held by public institutions is available to citizens upon request and in a usable form. Objectives of the study: 1. To determine which public institutions provide information to citizens upon request with relative ease. 2. To determine which institutions are using online platforms to promote access to information. The following public institutions were surveyed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 116 National Arts Council of Zimbabwe (NACZ) TelOne The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MPSE) The Public Service Commission(PSC) The Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB) The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) The Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC) The Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) The Zimbabwe National Road Administration (ZINARA) • • • • • Although there were a few exceptionally good websites, most were of mediocre to poor calibre. Content was not regularly updated Lack of critical information, such as the procedure of obtaining information Some websites generated error messages. Some websites were difficult to navigate when using cell phones. Category 2: Requests for Information • • • • • Most institutions failed to provide written responses. The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, the Judicial Services Commission and the Zimbabwe Media Commission responded promptly and in full detail to the information requests. The National Arts Council responded telephonically and provided answers to all questions. The Sports and Recreation Commission acknowledged receipt of the information request but expressed suspicion of the researcher’s motive, therefore requesting further justification for the reason why information was sought. Oral requests for information were mostly declined and the researchers were asked to request information in writing.