SECTOR 1 his control. Nothing in this Act shall limit or otherwise restrict any other legislative requirement for a public authority to disclose information. The Act (Sections 7-9) upholds the principles of obligation to provide information, obligation to keep information and the obligation to publish certain information. Among other clauses, it requires state authorities to appoint information officers to ‘deal with requests for information and render assistance to a person seeking such information’. The law further outlines procedures for accessing information in Sections 10 and 11, which include special considerations for non-literate and disabled members of the public. Despite these progressive provisions, panellists said the Access to Information Act remained inadequate. For example, there are no repercussions to information holders who decide not to honour information requests. They made the comparison with India, where a similar law says an information officer who fails to honour an information request is held personally liable. The Tanzanian law also gives information officers, or persons acting as such, up to one month to respond to information requests, which is restrictive for people who might need information on tight deadlines such as journalists and lawyers. Furthermore, Section 18 restricts how information obtained from information holders can be used, prescribing a prison term of up to two years for anyone found guilty of distorting information obtained through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Since the passing of the Access to Information Act, panellists said access to information has ironically become more difficult for the public and cited two studies by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and the Media Council of Tanzania, which show that the law has not improved public access to information. Panellists stated that with the requirement to appoint information officers, some public authorities – like local governments, who traditionally communicated with constituents – have scaled back on their use of public notice boards and other channels. There has also been a sharp decline in publicly available information on official websites and other portals that existed under an open government drive prior to 2016. Rather than promote, panellists felt the Access to Information Act had restricted access to information. Many reasons account for this unflattering perception. The most significant appears to be confusion among information holders, such as municipalities, District Executive Directors (DEDs) and information officers on their different roles. One panellist explained the situation as follows, ‘Sometimes, the information officer will tell you he is not the spokesperson of the DED. Even though the law empowers the information officer to provide information and help information seekers, some of them still tell you they need the approval of their superiors or the DED. At the same time, some districts have stopped providing information to the public using other channels that worked in the past, because they feel all information must now go out through the information officers.’ By and large, panellists felt the Access to Information Act had taken the country backward rather than forward. The public, they pointed out, was no longer able to receive information as promptly as they did in the past when districts had rolled 20 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER TANZANIA 2019