ZIMBABWE However it has not been all doom and gloom, as there have been positive jurisprudential developments, especially with the Constitutional Court recently ruling that criminal defamation is unconstitutional. Two cases have confirmed that sections of criminal defamation law were unconstitutional and should accordingly be struck down. In the case of Madanhire and Matshazi v Attorney-General the Constitutional Court (quoting from a South African case, Hoho v The State [2008] ZASCA 98) reaffirmed that: “The importance of the right to freedom of expression has often been stressed by our courts. Suppression of available information and of ideas can only be detrimental to the decision-making process of individuals, corporations and governments. It may lead to the wrong government being elected, the wrong policies being adopted, the wrong people being appointed, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence not being exposed, wrong investments being made and a multitude of other undesirable consequences. It is for this reason that it has been said that ‘freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and the development of man’.” Similar sentiments were also echoed in the preceding 2013 case of Kahiya and Chimakure v Attorney-General. The Ministry of Information also set up an Information and Media Panel of Inquiry whose mandate is to gather the views of citizens on how to reform the media sector. The recommendations will be used to reform media legislation and make other reforms that promote freedom of expression and access to information. It was evident from this study that many officials in public institutions failed to demonstrate that they understand that public information is not the property of government, but rather is held by government on behalf of its citizens. Written or oral requests for information were treated with suspicion by civil servants. More than half of the civil servants who received letters or oral requests for information as part of this study expressed surprise that ordinary citizens could make information requests. A significant number of them asked why the information was needed and made remarks about their institutions not providing information to individuals. They would only provide information to institutions or to the media. A culture of fear was evident in many public servants who were reluctant to identify themselves or provide their contact details. Most of them referred the requests to a more senior official and there was no clear structure with regard to who was responsible for attending to the information needs of the public. Some institutions referred the researcher to the Permanent Secretary, who is the highest administrative authority in government ministries. Although many institutions have websites, many of the websites are not taken seriously, lacking useful information, as well as information that is not updated. Some websites have details for officials who served under the previous cabinet. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH PARAMETERS Governments and public institutions are responsible for facilitating the right to access to information, and there are two key aspects to this responsibility: enabling citizens to access information upon request; and proactively disseminating important information. In June 2014, the Media Institute of Southern Africa – Zimbabwe Chapter (MISA Zimbabwe) assessed the level of accessibility of information held by government and public institutions in Zimbabwe. The public institutions assessed were randomly selected with particular attention paid to the relevance and nature of information these institutions hold. The public institutions surveyed were the following: 1. The Zimbabwe Football Association (ZIFA) 2. The Zimbabwe United Passenger Company (ZUPCO) 3. The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education 4. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure Development 5. The Ministry of Local Government, Urban and Rural Planning 6. The Zimbabwe National Roads Administration (ZINARA) 7. The Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) 8. The Central Mechanical Equipment Department (CMED) 9. The Ministry of Psychomotor 10. Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology AIM OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of openness in government and public institutions in Zimbabwe. The results of the study will continue to inform MISA Zimbabwe’s campaign for access to information legislation. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY s 4O ASSESS THE LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC institutions against international standards and principles of access to information. s 4O PROVIDE EVIDENCE BASED RESEARCH FOR USE IN ADVOCATING FOR the reform of laws that restrict access to information. s 4O INFORM ADVOCACY AND INTERVENTIONS BY -)3! :IMBABWE AND civil society across the country. s 4O ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO access information generated by the government, in order to enjoy their 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. 121