A Synthesis Report - Freepressunlimited

Availability of information about the Right to amibia0001212Nigeria20068RTI information (Is an annual report on the status ofimplementation of the RTI law published includingnumber of requests granted, refused and time takento respond?)Sierra oneTotalNamibia0001212Nigeria20068How to make an RTI request (Is information on howto make an RTI request published, including contactdetails?)Sierra oneTotalNamibia0001212Nigeria00088Costs for publications (Is information aboutthe costs/fees for paying for photocopies ofinformation?)Sierra oneTotalNamibia0001212Nigeria00088Costs for publications (Is information about thecosts/fees for paying for photocopies of information?)Sierra oneTotalNamibia0001212Nigeria200108List of information requested (Is information relatedto RTI requests which were granted published?)Sierra LeoneZimbabweN/AXN/AAssessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 8

When analyzing the data collected for this project it isnecessary to consider the varying degrees of applicableRTI legislation in the four countries. While Nigeria1 andZimbabwe2 both have constitutional guarantees andseparate, independent RTI laws, Sierra Leone passedthe Right to Access Information Act 2013 but hasno constitutional guarantee for RTI. A constitutionalguarantee means that the right to access informationis enshrined in the constitution of the state. While itis essential to have legislation guaranteeing the rightto information, constitutional guarantees are veryimportant as they give overriding status to the rightand make it clear that RTI is a fundamental humanright, not simply a right guaranteed by law. Namibiahas neither a constitutional guarantee nor an RTI law.Chapter 1 elaborated on the choice and justification oftarget countries, and these different country contextsare important to keep in mind in assessing the leveland, perhaps more importantly, the legal obligationsfor RTI implementation in the four countries.NamibiaProactive disclosure is an important element ofproviding access to public information. While Namibiadoes not have a constitutional guarantee or RTI lawin place guaranteeing this, however, the HarambeeProsperity Plan I (targeted action plan complimentaryto national development plans and Vision 2030),under the Effective Governance and Service DeliveryPillar, produced an ATI bill that was tabled on 17July 2020 in the National Assembly. Under the sameplan, the Ministry of Information, Communication andTechnology (MICT) also published a CommunicationPlan (2016/17-2019/20) titled ‘Providing Access toPublic Information’, which set guidelines for internaland external communications. It is against thisCommunication Plan that Namibia’s RTI implementationis currently measured. The Communication Bill is,however, not as detailed as the tabled bill, butdoes define the duties/functions of public relationsofficers tasked with providing access to publicinformation. Duties/functions include: (1) Conduct pressconferences/briefing on a regular basis, (2) Effectivelyutilize electronic media, (3) Embrace social media usepolicy, (4) Oversee the regular update of websites, (5)Engage print media for information dissemination, (6)Monitor the media regularly, (7) Corporate identity1.2.3.to be developed and maintained, (8) Re-brand O/M/As3 in line with government policies, (9) Participate intrade fairs/trade expos/exhibitions to bring informationcloser to the people, (10) Collaborate with governmentcentral communication unit at Ministry of ICT, (11)Coordinate the translation of information into nationallanguages.In regard to proactive disclosure of information,Namibia fared relatively well compared to the otherthree project countries. It should be noted that severalMDAs had made some effort to proactively discloseinformation, particularly on their websites. Thisinformation primarily included functions; strategies,plans and policies; laws; and public procurementinformation. Lists of personnel information and theircontact details were rarely published fully, with mostinstitutions disclosing only general contact information.MICT published a government directory for governmentoffices, ministries, and agencies containing onlyinformation and contact details of personnel in seniorpositions. On the other hand, the Communication Planstipulates that public relations officers should be thepoint of contact for information requests.Without an exclusive RTI law/framework guidinginformation disclosure, outside of the CommunicationPlan, no specific information on RTI request procedureshas been published. However, it is worth mentioningthat government ministries have established customerservice charters providing information on how theyservice public complaints and enquiries (these arenot, however, specific to RTI requests). All but oneof the public entities assessed have published theirannual reports. Additionally, the Ministry of Financepublishes all budget documents on its website andhas, commendably, been working towards greatertransparency in its open budgeting processes.NigeriaNigeria has both a constitutional guarantee and anRTI law in effect. The Freedom of Information Act2011 provides that public institutions shall ensurethat information referred to by the Act is “widelydisseminated and made readily available to membersof the public through various means, including print,electronic and online sources and at the offices ofConstitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, Article 36.1; Freedom of Information Act 2011Constitution of Zimbabwe 2013, Article 62; Freedom of Information Act 2019Government Offices, Ministries and AgenciesAssessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 9

such public institutions”. This duty also extends to theupdate and review of the information required to beproactively published under the Act “periodically andimmediately whenever changes occur”.Websites of MDAs in Nigeria were analyzed inassessment of proactive disclosure in line withthe methodology. Six of these MDAs publishedinformation relating to the description of the activitiesand services they undertook to varying degrees. TheFederal Ministry of Finance had no information on itswebsite except for links to its parastatals, while theFederal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and DisasterManagement had no active website at all at the timeof this assessment. Three out of eight institutionsprovided 75% information on organizational structure,names, titles, and contacts of key officials, whiletwo MDAs published 50% and no information waspublished for the remaining three MDAs.Evidenced from the research conducted on theeight MDAs, seven of these gave no informationon their budget and expenditure, and six gave noinformation about the right to information. TheMinistry of Health had information on their budgetfor the year 2016, suggesting a lack of adherenceto the legal commitments as laid out in national RTIlegislation. The analyzed MDAs to varying degreesdisclosed information about their organization,functions of departments/units, organograms, annualreports, project reports, establishing acts, guidelines,etc., showing a pronounced inconsistency betweenindividual institutions.Sierra LeoneSierra Leone saw the end of a brutal civil war in2002. The country is, however, still plagued by manyobstacles to democratization and stability suchas high levels of corruption, poverty, reliance onaid, unemployment and poor infrastructure. Whileimprovement has been made, the internationalreconstruction effort in Sierra Leone has to a largedegree failed to address fundamental causes of theconflict, including institutional weakness and endemiccorruption and the marginalization of youth. While thisis not endemic to Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone serves as acontext wherein the assurance and provision of rights,including the right to information, is deeply challengedby socio-economic and political tension.While not having a constitutional guarantee for RTI,Sierra Leone’s Right to Access Information Act 2013has been rated as the 5th strongest Freedom ofInformation Act in the world. The Right to AccessInformation Act 2013 has nine parts with 51 sections.Part 1 (section 1) provides an interpretation of keyprovisions in the Act; part 2 (section 1-11) elaborateson the right to information; part 3 (section 12-26) dealswith exempt information; part 4 (section 27-29) focuseson measures to promote openness; part 5 (section30-37) speaks to the administrative provisions of theCommission; part 6 (section 38-41) concentrates onfinancial provisions; part 7 (section 42-46) deals withappeals; part 8 (section 47-48) focuses on offences andpenalties, and; part 9 (section 49-51) makes provisionsfor miscellaneous elements with a key focus onregulations, whistle-blower protection and protectionof bona fide action.However, residents in Sierra Leone are yet to fullyexercise their right to access information fully asenshrined in the Act. Various reasons for this maybe prevalent such as the public not being fullyaware of their right to access information or lack ofknowledge on how to exercise this right. Furthermore,the government has been very slow in adoptinginstruments that are complementary to the Right toAccess Information law that would encourage the fullimplementation and realization of the legal provisionsin the Act. Consequently, the implementation andpotential gains to be harnessed from the Rightto Access Information Act 2013 remain a colossalchallenge for the government, CSOs and citizens acrossthe country.Section 8 (1a-p) of the Act mandates public institutionsto proactively disclose information. For SierraLeone, 30 MDAs were analyzed with 77% of MDAsassessed having websites. Proactive disclosure ofkey information, however, such as detailed profileinformation of most institutions is hardly available,hence creating difficulties for the public to accesscomprehensive information on key information ofmany of the MDAs, which the 2013 Act entitles themto. Only 20% of MDAs disclosed names, designations,and contact details of public information officers, whichleaves much room for improvement in strengtheningthe access points for information through publicinformation officers, appellate authorities and theCommission/institutions. The Act further makesprovision for disclosure of critical information such asa directory of officers and employees. 40% of targetedMDAs did not possess a directory of their officers/employees, hence creating further difficulty for thepublic to approach/engage appropriate authoritieswithin the institutions in the bid to access information.Assessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 10

Minutes or summary of board/council/committeemeetings, as provisioned by the Act, were further notdisclosed by 70% of MDAs, as was a lack of proactivedisclosure on the particulars of concessions, permits orauthorizations granted by MDAs.ZimbabweWhile Zimbabwe has both a constitutional guaranteeand RTI law in place several factors threaten theequilibrium of the right to access information theimplementation of RTI legislation in the country. Witha new constitution (2013) and RTI law (2019), greatpotential for Zimbabwe to transition from yesteryears’dictatorship into an emerging democracy exist,however, the path towards democratization, and RTI,seems marred with many obstacles. While the Freedomof Information Act 2019 has been signed into law, thegovernment has gazetted the Cybersecurity and DataProtection Bill, which is strong on surveillance of citizensand weak on balancing cybersecurity with the enjoymentof fundamental rights such as free expression online,privacy and protection of personal data. Furthermore,the government in 2020 announced its intentions tocome up with a Patriot Bill, which, if enacted, has thepotential of curtailing the exercise of rights such asmedia freedom and freedom of expression, right toprivacy, access to information, freedom of conscience,political rights, freedom to demonstrate and petition,and freedom of assembly and association. The rulingZANU PF party has since moved a motion in Parliamenton the need to introduce the bill. Media violations havealso been prevalent in recent years.Ten MDAs were analyzed in the Zimbabwean context.Three out of the ten had no functional website at thetime the study was conducted. MDAs in Zimbabwehave been largely unresponsive to requests andproactive disclosure of information. While legislationis in place, the Government of Zimbabwe’s sincerity inentrenching the pillars of democracy and commitmentto uphold the rights to media freedom, freedom ofexpression and access to information as provided for bySections 61 and 62 of the Constitution, let alone otherrights in the Bill of Right, must be questioned.Assessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 11

2.2. Institutional MeasuresThe [tables for assessing institutional measures for RTI implementation are] about the overall framework forimplementation (i.e. it assesses central government actions and only needs to be applied once for each country)[and the] individual authorities covered by FOIA (and should, as a result, be applied separately to each authoritybeing assessed).Overall Framework for ImplementationHas government established an RTInodal4 agency? (If yes, comment onits roles and functionality)NoNamibiaXNigeriaXSierra LeoneXZimbabweXHas government establishedan independent RTI oversightmechanism, such as an informationcommission? (If yes, comment on itswork and how effective it has been)4.YesYesNoRemarksThe Ministry of Information and Communication Technologyoversees government communications, and providesstandards and mechanisms for sharing information. Theseinclude, for example, the Communication Policy, the draftrevised National Information Policy, and others. The Ministrytabled the ATI Bill in June 2020. Currently, there is noalternative RTI nodal agency, though the ATI Bill does providefor an Information Commissioner.Disaggregated data not availableRemarksNamibiaXThe ATI Bill provides for an Information Commissioner.However, the law is yet to be passed. It is anticipated that ATIlegislation will be passed within the next year. It is one of thepriorities on the President’s Harambee Prosperity Plan.Nigeria(X)The Government did not establish an independent RTIoversight mechanism per se. The Act created RTI oversightresponsibilities for the Attorney General of the Federation(AGF) whose office is domiciled in the Federal Ministry ofJustice and provided accompanying responsibilities to theAGF. The AGF developed guidelines on the implementationof the FOIA, created processes to handle conflicts arising fromdisclosure, organizes trainings and retraining of Desk officersof MDAs and ensures that reports on the implementation ofthe Act by institutions are submitted to the House Committeeon FOI annually.Sierra LeoneXDisaggregated data not availableZimbabweXThe commission has not gazetted guidelines governing howto make complaints.A nodal agency is a central authority sitting inside of government which is responsible for coordinating, capacity building and RTI standardsetting for other agencies in the country.Assessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 12

Implementation by Individual Public AuthoritiesHas the authority appointedan Information Officerwho is responsible for RTIimplementation? (If yes comment onhow the mandate functions)YesNamibia(X)11 out of 12 MDAs (incl. SOEs) had appointed an InformationOfficer responsible for RTI implementation in line with the2016/17-2019/20 Ministry of Information, Communication andTechnology’s Communication Plan, which sets guidelines forinternal and external communications.Nigeria(X)2 out 7 MDAs had appointed Information Officers.Sierra LeoneNoN/AZimbabweXDoes the authority have an RTIimplementation plan? (If yes,comment on the extent to which sucha plan has been operationalised)YesNoRemarksDisaggregated data not availableNo appointed Information Officer, however, public relationsdepartments are tasked with responding to public queries.RemarksNamibiaXAccording to the country report, the use of social media (Facebook), electronic mail, website, press conferences, pressreleases, newsletter, media monitoring for queries, and annualreports constitute Namibia’s RTI implementation plan, reflected in at the level of all 12 MDAs.Nigeria(X)1 out 7 MDAs had an RTI implementation plan (Federal Ministry of Justice)Sierra LeoneN/AZimbabweDisaggregated data not availableXHas the authority developed/issued guidelines for receivingand responding to informationrequests? (If yes, comment on theirusage)YesNamibia(X)7 out of 12 MDAs had developed guidelines for receivingand responding to information requests (however some asgeneral/service charters and not specifically for informationrequests)Nigeria(X)1 out of 7 MDAs had guidelines for information requests inboth hard copy and online.Sierra LeoneZimbabweNoN/ARemarksDisaggregated data not availableXAssessment of the Implementation of SDG Indicator 16.10.02 on Access to Information in Four African Countries 13

Does the authority prepare andpublic annual reports, includi

Zimbabwe to supplement the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), which the majority of the project's . and Zimbabwe as second time VNR presenters and Sierra Leone as third time VNR presenter). Nigeria presented in 2017 and 2020 and was chosen due to . constitute a full review of any of the target countries'