It is recommended that a primacy provision be included in the Bill to ensure that as Zimbabwe’s access to information law, it is supreme on all matters concerning access to information, to the exclusion of laws restricting the right. The draft Bill also contains definitions that distinguish between statutory bodies, public entities and private entities. Once passed into law, the new Bill would apply to all types of bodies, unlike under AIPPA which only applied to some select public bodies. In terms of Section 62(2) of the Constitution, access to information held and controlled by private entities is only granted in instances where such information is necessary for the protection or exercise of a fundamental right. The Bill however, does not provide for access to information controlled by private entities. This has proved to be restrictive in countries such as South Africa, where it is impossible for requesters to access information held by any private entities. Section 3 sets out the objectives of the Bill. Unlike is the case with AIPPA, the Bill calls for the establishment of voluntary and mandatory mechanisms and procedures that facilitate quick, inexpensive, and simple access to information. The Bill also seeks to promote transparency and accountability on the part of information controllers in a way that assists members of the public exercise their right to access information. Voluntary information disclosures are essential, but this is unlikely in an environment that has been significantly closed. This can be addressed through proactive disclosure of information which lies at the core of access to information principles, that is, information must be disclosed without the need for a request. The use of the term “voluntary” is therefore, problematic because it implies that the entity controlling the information has a discretion to provide information when it should ideally, be mandatory for public entities and statutory entities that perform public functions or provide public services to proactively disclose information. Section 5 of the Bill attempts to formalise the duty to disclose information by stating that public entities, public commercial entities, and statutory entities, must have a “written information disclosure policy.” This is a positive inclusion, but in its current form, this does not go far enough to ensure meaningful disclosure of information held by public entities. It is recommended that the duty to disclose information goes beyond just the production of a written information disclosure policy. In terms of Section 7 of the Model Law, entities are expected to proactively disclose the following information: • particulars of the entity’s structure, functions and duties • policies behind the legislation administered by the entity • categories of information held by it or under its control 6