or misleading information; and obstructing the release of information. These are important provisions that ensure that there is no abuse of office and minimise the arbitrary denial of requested information. 5. Recommendations The Bill makes marginal improvements to the current access to information regime under AIPPA and other various sectoral laws. However, a lot of work still needs to be done before the Bill matches the standards set in Section 62 of the Zimbabwe Constitution as well as in the Model Law. A few areas might require consideration to improve on the quality of the Bill and its enforcement. The Bill has no specific provisions in terms of the minimum requirements for information officers. While this might be governed by each public or private entity in respect of the skills set, it might be prudent to have some very generic minimums that such individuals should possess. The fact that the Zimbabwe Media Commission has a duty to “ensure that the people of Zimbabwe have fair and wide access to information,” does not justify making this Commission the guardian of the right to access information in Zimbabwe. The Bill’s Memorandum rightly states the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission as the guardian of human rights in Zimbabwe, including the right to access information. Therefore, the ZHRC should be the Commission that is responsible for the monitoring and enforcement of this Bill. Sections 243(1) (a) – (d) of the Constitution sets out the functions and duties of the ZHRC. These duties are already wide enough to cater for the protection and promotion of the right to access information as set out in this Bill. There will therefore, be no need to amend the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act or grant any extra duties to the ZHRC in order for it to monitor the promotion and enjoyment of the right to access information in terms of this law. It will only be necessary to ensure that the ZHRC is well resourced in terms of funding and is equipped for this work through the appointment of commissioners that have knowledge on access to information laws and processes. Voluntary disclosure has over the years not worked with public bodies, let alone private bodies. There is need to reconsider this approach and put in place mechanisms that promote proactive disclosure of information from public bodies. The discretionary powers of information officers must be prescribed and guided according to the constitutional principles on the right to access information. The period of deferment under Section 11 (2) 18