ZIMBABWE and media to access some information held by government and public institutions. Another law is the Public Order and Security Act 2002 (POSA), which restricts freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Then there is also the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act 2002 (AIPPA). In its preamble, the Act states it will provide members of the public with a right of access to records and information held by public bodies. It further pledges to make public bodies accountable by allowing the public the right to request correction of misrepresented personal information. However, in reality, the opposite is true, as the law takes away more than it gives. Under AIPPA, applicants seeking records or information held by a public body should request the information in writing and where possible pay a reasonable fee. The head of any public body is given up to 30 days to respond. He/she is allowed to refuse to grant the requested information where it is deemed the information sought is not in the public interest. If the information involves a third party, the head of the public institution is allowed 30 more days to consult the third party before responding to the request. 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 the event the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision not to grant information, he/she may ask the Commissioner 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 actually makes the process of accessing information more cumbersome and complex. The process is unnecessarily bureaucratised, as it may take more than 60 days before a final decision is made on whether an applicant can have access to a record or requested information. This is one of those typical scenarios in which AIPPA begins to act as an impediment to access to information rather than foster the spirit of openness and transparency within public bodies. The process contradicts the law’s intended principle of encouraging openness and accountability in the work of public institutions. Some public officials take advantage of the bureaucratic nature of this legislation to frustrate requests for public information. This legislation has disempowered junior public officials who are fearful of disclosing any information to citizens or the media. Positive advances recorded a few years ago are now being reversed with government escalating its intentions to clamp down on social media through the Cybercrime Bill. As we speak, the government is crafting a cyber law which can potentially silence social media users and criminalise certain types of internet use. This will affect access to information on social media and other online platforms. Many institutions have hostile personnel manning their gates and receptions, and who made it impossible to hand over letters to the relevant authorities. For example, at the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) one cannot enter the premises without an ID and one is forced to have his/her issues addressed by guards at the gate. There was palpable resistance in many institutions to give 104 information. It was not uncommon to be questioned about who the researcher was or what the information was needed for. Civil servants continue to express shock on why ordinary citizens request information. The attitude from these civil servants is that ordinary citizens have no business accessing public information. Information remains to be regarded as a privilege for those in authority or for those who work in certain stations in society such as the media. A culture of fear and unnecessary bureaucratic tendencies was evident. Organisations that have Public Relations Officers still asked the researchers to contact the Chief Executive Officer in order to access information. Those in these positions fear losing their jobs if they entertain requests for information. One was likely to get a somewhat better response or more attention from institutions if it was mentioned that the requester was a journalist as opposed to an ordinary citizen seeking information. Rationale and ReseaRch PaRaMeteRs AIM OF THE STUDY 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 study sought to determine whether such information as held by public institutions is available to citizens in a usable form upon request. Objectives of the study: 1. To determine which public institutions provide information to citizens upon requests with relative ease; and 2. To determine which institutions are utilising online platforms to promote access to information. Research methodology The research adopts qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, and seeks to evaluate the level of public access to information held by government and public institutions. The MISA Chapters conduct research by evaluating the websites of government and public institutions along with submitting information requests. This method seeks to establish the transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. The following public institutions were surveyed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development The Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union(ZCFU) The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education The Public Service Commission(PSC) The Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission(ZHRC) The Tobacco Industry Marketing Board(TIMB) The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) The Grain Marketing Board (GMB) NetOne The Zimbabwe Anticorruption Commission (ZACC)