GOVERNMENT institutions, including the Ministry of Information and the Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC), are in violation of the Freedom of Information Act for failing to establish information disclosure policies, an investigation has revealed.
Parliament passed the Freedom of Information Act in 2020 to repeal the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Aippa) and to empower interested stakeholders to have full and justified access to information promoting public accountability and interests.
Article 5 of the Act states that “every public entity, public commercial entity or holder of a statutory office shall have a written information disclosure policy through which it discloses information in the interests of public accountability or that is required for the exercise or protection of a right”.
An information disclosure policy provides rules, guidelines and practices by a public institution to ensure that the required information is made available to the public.
According to findings of the investigation, none of the 26 institutions, comprising ministries, commissions, and parastatals, which were contacted possessed an information disclosure policy as required by the Freedom of Information Act.
The investigation was conducted through a combination of doorstep visits to government officials and phone calls and emails, where physical attempts to contact spokespersons of the government institutions were unsuccessful.
The ZMC, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission (ZHRC) and the Information ministry were the only institutions that acknowledged efforts to develop such policies, describing them as “work in progress”.
Of concern was the complete lack of commitment from 23 other institutions, where there was no indication whatsoever of any plans to formulate the information disclosure policy as they failed to provide timelines, or significant steps towards formulating the policy.
When requested to provide information disclosure policies, most spokespersons, 16 out of 26, referred this reporter to the Information Ministry, which itself was found to be in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, indicating a lack of independence and centralised control over information dissemination.
The absence of any indication of future action on formulating information disclosure policies raises serious questions about their willingness to comply with the law and provide citizens with the information they have a right to access.
Both the ZMC and the Information ministry also failed to provide specific timelines on when the information disclosure polies would be ready.
“Our draft information policy is still going through internal processes and once we have a final draft, we will make it available on our website for the public to have easy access,” Information ministry secretary Ndabaningi Mangwana said.
ZMC research training and development manager Tariro Shonhiwa advised The Standard to use the Freedom of Information Act to compel the commission to release the document.
“The policy has not yet been publicised it still going through internal process,” Shoniwa said.
“If you want us to share it with you, you have to file an application using the Freedom of Information Act so that we provide the document.”
However, when asked to share templates of the policies, the institutions claimed they were not at liberty to do so, raising further concerns about transparency and accountability.
“I can’t give you the document that has been ratified by government,” Mangwana said.
“It’s a draft policy and we are still working on it so it will be premature for me to give it you.
“For us to prove that we have a document in daft and release the template, which has been ratified; I can’t do that.”
The investigation further established that spokespersons for government institutions lack autonomy in responding to media inquiries, after The Standard was forced to navigate a maze of referrals.
Most directors of communication, who are the heads of information and publicity departments in government-run institutions, were unable to provide immediate answers to this reporter’s inquiries.
Instead, this publication was often referred from one office to another, and in some cases, to junior-ranking officers who would again refer the reporter back to their seniors, who had already claimed ignorance or inability to provide the information.
At the ZMC for instance, The Standard was referred first to the office which deals with accreditation of journalists, who referred them to a communications officer Khaya Moyo.
Moyo also referred this publication to Brian Tomo who is the public information compliance manager but Tomo also referred questions to Shonhiwa.
At the Transport ministry, the receptionist was reluctant to direct The Standard to the ministry spokesperson, but instead directed the reporter to the ministry’s secretary Amos Marawa’s office, which later gave the green light to contact the spokesperson Judith Nhau.
At the National Peace and Reconciliation Commission, The Standard contacted the spokesperson Obert Gutu who is a commissioner. Gutu, however, referred this publication to a junior ranking officer Mercy Mthombeni. Mthombeni referred questions back to Gutu.
This buck-passing and lack of accountability underscored the systemic failure to implement the Freedom of Information Act and provide citizens and the media with access to information.
Finance ministry director of communications advocacy Pretty Moyo said the ministry’s secretary had the sole authority to respond to the media queries.
“Please kindly noted that I have sent your request up the line to the secretary, who is going to give you an official response,” Moyo said.
“The Ministry of Information is best suited to answer to your query so I would direct your enquiry to them.
“However, please note that as government we work on a simple framework and policy guideline that states that the secretary or any delegated authority is the official spokesperson of the ministry, therefore, all divulgence of ‘public’ information goes through him for approval and subsequent dissemination.
“Government information is public information but we follow the protocols stated above.”
Other spokespersons of institutions such as the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission and the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority requested that questions be submitted in writing via email, even in instances where the reporter met with spokespersons in person or text. They failed to respond even after receiving the questions.
The failure to respond to written questions and follow-ups on in-person meetings demonstrates a clear disregard for the principles of openness and transparency enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act.
The investigation also revealed a widespread lack of knowledge among government spokespersons about the Freedom of Information Act.
Except for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the Human Rights Commission, the ZMC, and the Information Ministry, most spokespersons displayed a startling ignorance of the Act.
Some even confused the Freedom of Information Act with the Official Secrets Act, a piece of legislation that has been used to conceal information from the public.
Furthermore, many spokespersons mistakenly equated their institutions’ client service charters with information disclosure policies, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and its requirements.
This lack of awareness and understanding among government spokespersons undermines the effectiveness of the Freedom of Information Act and access to information by both the media and the members of the public.
Legal experts bemoaned absence of information disclosure policies within government institutions saying it was a blow to issues of transparency and accountability on public affairs.
“It means the media has a lot of work to do in order to help these public bodies realise the need for the policies,” lawyer Tonderai Bhatasara said.
“For some it’s ignorance, while for others, it is arrogance. Lack of such policies reflects on the culture of businesses — they resist disclosure because it helps in scrutiny and accountability.
“It means a serious clawback on Freedom of Information Act as organisations will not disclose information suggesting that there is no policy to authorise that disclosure.
“So democracy and transparency will be the biggest losers.”
Another lawyer Paidamoyo Saurombe said lack of information disclosure policies made journalists' work difficult as they could not easily access information that is in the public’s interest.
“The lack of information disclosure policies reflects a society that is somehow allergic to transparency and accountability,” Saurombe said.
“It places the media in a precarious position where they have to obtain information using uncouth means and that is bad for democracy.
“The revelation impacts the public's right to access information in that government becomes a power unto itself and does not account to the people where they derive power from.”
Saurombe advocated for legal action against government to compel institutions to formulate the policies.
“A society that does not have the free flow of information is far removed from the standards and basics of democracy and constitutionalism,” he said.
“Government must be ordered by courts of law if it’s not willing to put in place the mandatory policies as required at law. This could also be an indicator of the appointments that are made.”