BOTSWANA INTRODUCTION In 2013, the then Minister in the Office of the President, Mokgweetsi Masisi, stopped the adoption of the Freedom of Information Act - sponsored by an opposition Member of Parliament, Dumelang Saleshando- by promising to bring an improved bill from the Executive back to Parliament. Todate, four years later, with the Minister having now become the Vice President, there has not been any progress made on the new bill. Nor has there been any political will to escalate the discussion on access to information (ATI). This is despite the public will, demonstrated in both the Constitution (Section 12 under ‘Freedom of Expression’) and the National Vision 2016 document which explicitly recognised access to information as a right. Some state organs, notably the Ombudsman and the Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crimes (DCEC) have previously added their voices to the call for this law. However, at the same time, there have been instances of threats and persecution of conveyors of information, notably journalists, which hinders the practice of open governance. Most cases in which journalists were detained were attempts to block the release of certain information. In the case of the Botswana Gazette raid by the DCEC for instance, security agents confiscated computer storage units—a clear indication of the desire to close down information streams. The Gazette’s publisher, editor, reporter and their lawyer were briefly detained for purportedly trying to publish information that was before the DCEC. The lawyer, Joao Salbany, who had stayed in Botswana for over 20 years, was subsequently denied the renewal of his work permit. Another case involved a whistleblower and a freelance journalist, where the former was accused of stealing state property (a file). They were detained for the weekend and subsequently discharged, however, the whistleblower who was then a government employee, had his employment terminated. The Botswana Gazette in a landmark case, challenges the Water Utilities Corporation (WUC) before the High Court to release information regarding privately-owned dams in the vicinity of the National Dam. This is a pioneering case in Botswana where, save for the constitutional recognition of freedom of information, there is no specific law detailing or facilitating access to information. This case also illuminates the difficulty of accessing information in Botswana, since not everyone can afford the litigation expenses. The need for access to information legislation has never been more urgent. An ATI law is expected to not only enforce the release of information but also to make access effortless and convenient with, where necessary, reasonable exemptions. With explicit timelines and turnaroundtimes, the public will be able to seek legal assistance if and when they are denied due information. This law will also make life easier for public bodies since they will have the opportunity to support their position for classified information before proper commissioners of information. The ATI law therefore is not necessarily a panacea for journalists’ woes alone (as it is often assumed), but will also provide governance on the release of contested information. Unlike now, when journalists just have to use their intuition, notwithstanding the existing inhibiting laws, to make editorial decisions. Using the African Union Model Law on ATI, from which the bill that the government rejected in 2013 was modelled, the exemptions in the law limit journalists’ natural penchant for an absolute open government and therefore provide for balance in the public interest. Government’s fear of fully implementing an open ATI system is therefore irrational, unwarranted and paranoiac. Rationale and ReseaRch PaRaMeteRs This research is intended to gauge the accessibility of information in government and public offices. Eight public institutions were targeted and given written requests for information pertaining to their organisations. Four of the information requests were physically handed over to the Citizen Entrepreneurial and Development Agency (CEDA), the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), the Ministry of Youth Empowerment, Sports and Culture Development (MYSC), and the Ministry of Health and Wellness (MOH). The remaining four were emailed to the Companies and Intellectual Property Authority (CIPA), the Ministry of Nationality, Immigration and Gender Affairs (MNIG), the Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority (BOCRA) and the University of Botswana (UB). The first four were handed in on 27 July 2017 and by 15 August 2017, none of them had responded, save for seeking some clarification and providing some updates. The next batch was sent on different dates between 28 July 2017 and 1 August 2017. The different dates were due to email technical errors and where necessary, requests had to be resent. However, except for one of the organisations contacted, 21 days elapsed without any response. The websites were analysed based on a few guidelines: aesthetic, informative, effective/functional, and efficient. Social media was considered an added value. The following public institutions were surveyed:: 1. Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority (BOCRA) 2. Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency (CEDA) 3. Companies and Intellectual Property Authority (CIPA) 4. Ministry of Health and Wellness (MOHW) 5. Ministry of Nationality, Immigration and Gender Affairs (MNIG) 6. University of Botswana (UB) 7. Ministry of Youth Empowerment, Sports and Culture Development (MYESC) 8. Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) 9