ZAMBIA INTRODUCTION It is said that information is the oxygen of democracy, so meaningful and effective citizen participation in the affairs of their society can only be actualised if adequate access to information is guaranteed. Access to information is an essential part of good government. Conversely, bad governments thrive on a culture of secrecy. Ironically, most governments prefer to conduct their business in secret, away from the eyes of the public. In this respect, governments usually advance many reasons for maintaining secrecy. These reasons typically include national security, public order and public interest. Zambia has no access to information law. On the contrary, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 criminalises unlawful access and possession of government information with a minimum sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. The Zambian Constitution does not expressly guarantee the right to access public information; however, the current draft constitution has a provision guaranteeing access to information: Article 72(1)(a) states that “every citizen has the right of access to information held by the State.” The adoption of this clause will not only guarantee citizens the right to information, but will end the 12-year process and resulting failure by government to enact an access to information law. Earlier this year (26 June 2018), President Edgar C. Lungu stated that his administration will remain open so that citizens can easily access information on matters of national interest in order to help enhance Zambia’s democratic credentials. However, prospects of Zambia ever enacting the Access to Information (ATI) Bill seemed bleak as the year progressed. This did not deter ATI Activist, Lloyd Bwalya of the Jesuits Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR), from demanding the enactment of the ATI Bill. He further observed the need for public input before the ATI Bill’s enactment into law. Similar calls were made by Transparency International Zambia (TIZ) President, Ruben Lifuka. He stated that ATI legislation would enhance the fight against corruption. Mr Lifuka called for the urgent enactment of the ATI Bill to ensure that the fight against corruption was not mere rhetoric. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH PARAMETERS The objective of this research was to determine the transparency and openness of public institutions with regards to how they handle and respond to requests for information from the public. It is believed that public and government institutions hold information on behalf of citizens, and when citizens request such information, it should be provided to them. This study is meant to encourage transparency and openness in government and public institutions. 88 For this research, eight public institutions were randomly selected. The study was conducted from 16 July to 17 August 2018 in Lusaka, Zambia. Written requests for information were submitted to all selected institutions and their online platforms, including their websites and social media pages, were assessed. The following public institutions were surveyed: 1. National Road Fund Agency (NRFA) 2. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAL) 3. Ministry of Community Development and Social Welfare (MCDSW) 4. Ministry of Gender (MoG) 5. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services (MIBS) 6. Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) 7. Zambia Public Procurement Authority (ZPPA) 8. Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Category 1: Website analysis • • • • • All institutions except for the MCDSW have working websites. All the institutions except for the MCDSW have Facebook pages with several of them containing up-to date content, but most have little-to-no interaction with their audience. None of the websites analysed provide information on budgets and expenditures. None of the websites analysed indicate their institution’s working hours. Several of the websites analysed do not have a mechanism for requesting and receiving responses to elec-tronic messages or requests for information. Category 2: Requests for information • • • • Of the eight surveyed institutions, only the NRFA and the ZPPA provided the requested information. All institutions acknowledged receipt of the requests and promised to get back to the researcher. The public relations officer of the MLNR met the researcher and promised to provide the requested infor-mation as soon as possible, yet failed to do so by the end of the research period. Generally, few institutions have a designated person to receive and respond to requests for information; all queries are usually addressed to the Permanent Secretary or the Director General, who then decides upon the response to the specific request for information.