=LPEDEZH and international instruments. As highlighted in the 2011 State of the Media Report, AIPPA remains a misnomer to citizens’ right to access to information as it retains restrictive provisions that are cumbersome to the exercise of that fundamental right more so in the context of the media’s watchdog role over the three arms of the state i.e. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Despite the cosmetic 2008 Amendments to AIPPA, the law still retains the provision among others, which gives public bodies 30 days within which to respond to requests for information. This has resulted in several public institutions continuing to operate in secrecy owing to the absence of a democratic freedom of information and access to information laws and an explicit constitutional provision to that effect. Lack of willingness to speedily provide information has seen the media tending to speculate and using unnamed sources thus severely compromising the citizens’ inalienable right to access information held by both public and private bodies to enable them to make informed decisions and choices. Among its other benchmarks, the Banjul Declaration stipulates that public bodies shall be required “even in the absence of a request” to actively publish important information or significant public interest. It further states that any refusal to disclose information shall be subject to an appeal to an independent body and or courts. In terms of Section 8 of AIPPA for one to get information from a public 6R7KLVLV'HPRFUDF\" body, one has to make a formal communication in writing to the head of the intended public body in the custody of the required information. However, the head of the public body has 30-day latitude period within which to respond to the application and he/she has leeway to extend the period with the commission’s consent. There is no justification for the 30 –day response period which is unnecessarily long and insensitive to the needs of those requiring that information. This situation is made worse by other existing legislation such as the Official Secrets Act and the fact that the constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to access to information. MISA-Zimbabwe is therefore encouraged by the inclusion of an explicit constitutional provision on the right to access to information which should go a long in the enactment of a democratic Freedom of Information Act. %URDGFDVWLQJDQG 7HOHFRPPXQLFDWLRQV Regulatory Framework The licensing of the first ever privately owned radio stations, ZiFM and Star FM in September last year is a welcome development that has somehow diversified the broadcasting sector for years dominated by the state-controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation. The government, however, appears to be dragging its feet in terms of instituting comprehensive legislative reforms that will free the media space, fundamentally as it pertains to the broadcast-