NAMIBIA OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY s 4O ASSESS THE LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC Institutions against international standards and principals on ATI. s 4O INmUENCE THE ADOPTION OF PRACTICES LAWS AND A CULTURE THAT promotes transparency and openness in government and public Institutions. s 4O ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO access to information generated, held and under the control of government institutions necessary for accessing other socio-economic rights. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research adopts qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection, and seeks to evaluate the level of public access to information held by government and public institutions. Each MISA Chapter conducts research by evaluating the websites of government and public institutions along with submitting oral and written requests for information. This method seeks to establish the transparency and efficiency of government and public institutions in providing information to the public. DATA ANALYSIS Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine the access and presence of credible and updated public information, which includes but is not limited to: powers and functions of the institution in question; vacancy and budgetary allocations; procurement procedures and contact details and reports. Category 2: This category was divided into two sections, namely written questionnaires and oral requests for information. These instruments were adopted to determine the ease with which public information is obtained from government and public institutions. Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to categories 1 and 2 is 20 points (n = 20) each. Points are awarded based on the researcher’s answer: Yes (2 points); Partial (1 point); No (0 points). Government ministries and institutions fell into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they received. Category 1: Website Analysis Group 1: (0 – 6) Absence of a website or an extremely poor website containing no or almost no relevant public information. Group 2: (7 – 13) Average website containing some relevant public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Well organised, transparent website providing a good amount of relevant public information. 58 Category 2: Written Request/Oral Request Group 1: (0 – 6) Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2: (7 – 13) Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS MISA Namibia concluded that most institutions were not reluctant to grant access to information when they were contacted, but failed to eventually respond to the questions sent to them via email, after confirming that they had received the email and would reply in due time. Access to the information of public institutions is primarily reliant on whether public relations officers are efficient in their duties. A special mention must be made of Aina Shikesho, public relations officer at the Ministry of Youth, National Service, Sport, and Culture. She paid special attention to our researcher, responding almost immediately and granting the researcher an interview within two days. It was the quickest and most efficient response of all the public institutions. Most websites had all the necessary information needed to make contact, and even though they were not completely up to date, the information was not excessively outdated.