to free speech and media freedom. MISA Malawi submitted a list of repressive laws that require redress to relevant authorities including Parliament and State House soon after President Banda had asked Parliament to repeal laws that limit freedom of expression in Malawi, but no action has been taken and the very same laws continue to be cited and used to instil fear and trepidation amongst critics. $WWHPSWVWRUHJXODWH2QOLQH FRQWHQW Malawi does not have an enabling legislation on ATI and people find it extremely difficult to access information. Section 37 of the Malawi Constitution clearly provides for the right of access to information but this provision in itself is not sufficient to ensure easy access as several factors, including an unresponsive/willing public sector and illiteracy, combine to limit the citizenry from enjoying this right. To address this problem, MISA-Malawi has been pushing and lobbying for legislation on ATI since 2003 to compel those in authority to provide information. President Banda added impetus to this process when she committed her administration to ensuring that Malawi has legislation on ATI during a meeting she had with MISA and senior media officials at Sanjika Palace in Blantyre in June 2012. Her commitment is, however, yet to bear fruits as the process is still dragging casting doubt on whether her assurance was mere rhetoric or government bureaucracy is trying to sabotage her good intentions. In a move most media practitioners and some members of the public consider retrogressive for media freedom and freedom of expression, the Joyce Banda administration in October 2012 circulated a Bill, initially labelled E-Bill and later entitled E-Transactions and Management Bill, to regulate and control online communications in the country. While the proposed law legitimately aims to provide a legal framework for the development of an information society by regulating electronic transactions for social and economic development, it oversteps the remit of regulating communications development by proposing to regulate communication. Media practitioners contend that the Bill is a veiled attempt to gag online voices through clauses that demand that editors of online public communication services reveal their names, domicile, telephone and registration numbers. Media practitioners also fault the proposal to introduce government-appointed “cyber inspectors” who will have the power to, among other duties, “monitor and inspect any website or activity on an information system in the public domain and report any unlawful activity to the [Regulatory] Authority.” Media practitioners believe that this would make them easy targets on a platform that has offered consolation and space in otherwise hostile environments. With hindsight the potential for online censorship is real, especially coming at a time when the nation as a whole was trying to forget Mutharika’s autocratic leadership. 6R7KLVLV'HPRFUDF\" $FFHVVWR,QIRUPDWLRQ $7,