positive and negative developments over the past year. At the forefront of what could be considered negative, are developments in South Africa around the ‘Protection of State Information’ Bill and the misuse of the ‘Nation Key Points’ Act, where it is argued that the country is progressively slipping in to a pattern that favours securitisation over the right to information. In particular, worries abound around the inclusion in the ‘Protection of State information’ bill of harsh penalties directed at those who come in to possession of State Information that has already been leaked. Despite a weak public interest defense that has been introduced to current version of the Bill, this will undoubtedly place severe restrictions on the media, as well as severely penalising whistleblowers. Much controversy has continued to surround The ‘National Key Points’ Act of 1980, which allows the head of SAPs to declare any place that is deemed vital to national security as a ‘key point’. The use of this apartheid piece of legislation has increased by over 50% in the past 5 years. The Government, however, despite a series of requests form freedom of information campaigners, continues to refuse to release a list of what type of places are currently protected under the current provisions of the law. This allows almost any place to be deemed a ‘national key point’ on the grounds of national security. In fact the Department of Works has used this provision to frustrate a probe in to 203 million rand upgrade to President’s Zuma’s home. This severely undermines the publics’ right to information and is in direct conflict with allowable limitations on the right to information under International law. The Johannesburg Principles, for example, in Principle 2(a), states that “A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country’s existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the government.” Despite regressive developments in South Africa, however, there have been come positive developments in the region around access to information. In March, 94.5% of the Zimbabwean population voted for the adoption of a new Constitution. Article 62 of the new Constitution grants the right to access to information to its citizens, as well as placing an obligation on Government to enact access to information legislation. In addition to this, the newly inaugurated president of Malawi stated that access to information legislation would be in place in Malawi within a year. The Government of Namibia, through its Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, also publicly committed itself to enacting access to information legislation in the Country. There have also been a number of ongoing processes that stalled in 2012, much to the disappointment of access to information advocates on the continent. The Government of Botswana, whilst rejecting a bill on access to information, brought before parliament by opposition member Hon. Dumelang Saleshando, stated that they would enact such legislation at the following February session in 2012, an event that has never taken place. The Gov- 6R7KLVLV'HPRFUDF\"