is equal to rejection of access to information. This allows the applicant to approach courts for a decision on the reasonableness of the steps taken to get the record. To prevent information officers and entities from abusing this provision, it is recommended that Section 20 of the Model Law offer guidance on how missing and non-existent records are dealt with. The section states that the notice given to a requester in cases of missing and non-existent records must include an affidavit or affirmation, signed by the information officer stating the substantive details of all steps taken to find the information or to determine whether the information exists. The affidavit must include the following information: a) details of all locations searched for the information and the person or persons that conducted those searches b) details of any communications with any person that the information officer contacted in searching for the information or attempting to establish the existence of the information c) any evidence relating to the existence of the information including; - (i) any evidence that the information was destroyed; and (ii) the location in which the information was last known to be held13. Another way of improving accessibility to information is to provide it in a way that is accessible and convenient to the person who requested it. This is another improvement from the current position contained in AIPPA, where information is only released in written/ printed format in English. Section 16 of the Bill states that the information must be provided to an applicant in the officially recognised language as the applicant requests. This means that information officers must, where so requested by the applicant, provide information in another official language that is not necessarily English. The entity may even translate the information into the requested language and recover the reasonable translation costs from the applicant14. The ability to recover translation costs from the applicant will no doubt prohibit requesters of information from asking for information translated into their languages. This therefore, becomes a clawback provision that eventually prohibits people from exercising their constitutional right to request information in one of Zimbabwe’s official languages as listed in Section 6(1) of the Constitution. This Bill does not prioritise accessibility of the information supplied in response to a request for information. Section 21(6) of the Model Law requires that the requested information must be made available in a form 13 14 Section 20(2) of the Model Law Section 16(2) of the Bill 12