SECTOR 1 under the act. If an application is rejected and an applicant wants to appeal he/ she has to go the (expensive) court route. The South African Human Rights Commission is responsible for the implementation and oversight of the act. The Commission can issue opinions and subpoena people to give testimony but it does not have the power to force state bodies or private companies to release information. There are some successes, though, with regard to access to information. For example, the Public Services Accountability Monitor (PSAM) – a unit based at Rhodes University in Grahamstown – has for years consistently and relentlessly pursued the Eastern Cape provincial government for information. Now the authorities themselves have approached PSAM, asking the unit to conduct training for their staff on how to provide state-held information, and they also voluntarily supply information that has not even been requested. In June 2010, the weekly Mail & Guardian won a High Court order which obliges government to release a confidential cabinet report on the 2002 elections in Zimbabwe. The paper argued that these elections were marred by vote-rigging, intimidation, violence and fraud on the part of the Zimbabwean authorities, but that the South African government nevertheless declared them free and fair. The judge agreed with the argument that the release of the report was therefore in the public interest – but government is presently appealing the ruling. The Protection of Information Bill outlined under indicator 1.3 now threatens to overturn the gains envisaged – and partly realised – as a result of the Promotion of Access to Information Act. Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator. 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: 2.7 (2008 = 2.3; 2006 = 2.7) AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER SOUTH AFRICA 2010 19