SWAZILAND INTRODUCTION The kingdom of Swaziland adopted its current Constitution in 2005. The Constitution recognises the critical role openness and access to public information play in building a transparent and accountable government. Section 24(2)(b) provides: “A person shall not, except with the free consent of that person, be hindered in the enjoyment of right of freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media, that is to say … freedom to receive ideas and information without interference”. Presently, there is no legislation that allows access to public information in the country, apart from the Constitutional provision above. There is however, a policy on information and media (the Information and Media Policy) that aims to promote public access to information held by public institutions. RATIONALE AND RESEARCH PARAMETERS Access to information is a fundamental human right that underpins all other rights. MISA Swaziland selected the following government and public institutions for the study: 1. Ministry of Public Works and Transport 2. Swaziland Competitions Commission 3. Ministry of Tinkhundla Administration and Development 4. Smart Partnership Secretariat 5. Ministry of Education and Training 6. National Emergency Relief Council on HIV and AIDS (NERCHA) 7. Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) 8. Commission for Human Rights and Public Administration Integrity AIM OF THE STUDY The aim of the study is to assess the level of transparency in government and public institutions in the country to support MISA Swaziland’s campaign, which is focused on the enactment of access to information legislation, with verifiable evidence. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY s 4O ASSESS THE LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC institutions against international and regional standards and principles on access to information. s 4O INmUENCE THE ADOPTION OF PRACTICES LAWS AND A CULTURE THAT promotes openness in government and public institutions. s 4O INFORM -)3! AND CIVIL SOCIETY CAMPAIGNS ON ACCESS TO information. s 4O ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO ACCESS PUBLIC information in order to enhance their development. 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. DATA ANALYSIS Category 1: Evaluation of government and public institution websites to determine the access and presence of credible and updated public information, which includes but is not limited to: powers and functions of the institution in question; vacancy and budgetary allocations; procurement procedures and contact details and reports. Category 2: This category was divided into two sections, namely written questionnaires and oral requests for information. These instruments were adopted to determine the ease with which public information is obtained from government and public institutions. Description of Assessment Criteria The total number of points allocated to categories 1 and 2 is 20 points (n = 20) each. Points are awarded based on the researcher’s answer: Yes (2 points); Partial (1 point); No (0 points). Government ministries and institutions fell into one of the following groups in accordance with the number of points that they received. Category 1: Website Analysis Group 1: (0 – 6) Absence of a website or an extremely poor website containing no or almost no relevant public information. Group 2: (7 – 13) Average website containing some relevant public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Well organised, transparent website providing a good amount of relevant public information. Category 2: Written Request/Oral Request Group 1: (0 – 6) Denied access to reasonable information request or acted with high levels of secrecy. Group 2: (7 – 13) Displayed an average level of openness in allowing access to public information. Group 3: (14 – 20) Displayed openness in allowing access to public information. Institution was helpful and transparent. Limitations of the Study The researcher made it clear in their requests for information that they were enquiring on behalf of MISA Swaziland. It should be noted that this may have had an impact on how the institutions’ responded, especially since it is highly likely they are aware that this study is conducted every year and therefore the true purpose of the enquiries. The institutions’ responses may have been different if an unaffiliated individual had made the enquiries. 71