1
ST
RD

2
HURINET – U
Human Rights Network-Uganda (HURINET-U) was established in 1993 by a group of eight human rights organizations, and was formally registered as an independent, non-partisan and not for profit organization in
1994. The membership of HURINET-U currently sits at 31 and is drawn from organizations that are committed to diverse human rights issues but complementary in terms of areas of focus, such as child rights, gender and women’s issues, torture, peace building and conflict resolution, prisoners’ rights, refugee rights and labour rights.
Members range from purely Ugandan NGOs to international organizations.
Open Society Justice Initiative
The Open Society Justice Initiative, an operational program of the Open Society Institute (OSI) , pursues law reform activities grounded in the protection of human rights, and contributes to the development of legal capacity for open societies worldwide. The Justice Initiative combines litigation, legal advocacy, technical assistance, and the dissemination of knowledge to secure advances in the following priority areas: national criminal justice, international justice, freedom of information and expression, and equality and citizenship. Its offices are in Abuja,
Budapest, London, New York and Washington DC.
Open Society Initiative for East Africa
The Open Society Initiative for East Africa (OSIEA) supports and promotes public participation in democratic governance, the rule of law, and respect for human rights by awarding grants, developing programs, and bringing together diverse civil society leaders and groups. OSIEA seeks to promote open society and to consolidate democratic principles and practices through increased public participation and the creation of a strong

institutionalized rights framework. OSIEA seeks to play an active role in encouraging open, informed dialogue about issues of national importance.
3
African Freedom of Information Centre
African Freedom of Information Center provides technical assistance to civil society organizations in different countries to develop and implement Freedom of Information advocacy, litigation and monitoring strategies. It is a regional centre, where experiences garnered from different countries can be pooled and shared among civil society activists, to provide a platform for cooperation and collaborative activities in the region. The centers activities include building capacity, developing linkages and networking, providing support, and facilitating collaborative action between civil society organizations all over Africa.
World Bank Institute
The World Bank is a source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. It is made up of two unique development institutions owned by 185 member countries, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International
Development Association (IDA) . Each institution plays a different but supportive role in the mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together they provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes.

4
HURINET U in partnership with Open Society Initiative for East Africa, Open Society and Justice Initiative ,
African Freedom of Information Centre and the World Bank organized the first of its kind conference on the
Freedom of Information under the theme “Securing and Implementing a robust Freedom of Information
Legislation Regime in Uganda and the Broader East African Region and Beyond”..
The conference was borne from the fundamental democratic value of increasing citizen participation in the governance process. Accordingly, giving nations transparency and accountability in government and in this case, combating corruption in the East African region and beyond. The conference focused on the adoption of appropriate institutional and legislative measures that guarantee the effective application of the Freedom of
Information principles throughout Africa and beyond.
The participants to the conference were drawn from countries at varying stages in the formulation and implementation of the freedom of information legislation. This greatly enhanced its potency as a forum for information sharing and crucial space for a campaign to reignite action on the Freedom of Information in the
East African region and beyond. It also created a window of opportunity to heighten advocacy and contributed to the consolidation of democracy and underscore tenets of good governance in the region.
The three day conference created a platform for peer learning and information sharing and exchange and was able to impact knowledge on the ability to better advocate for and support information legislation in their respective areas.
Participants gained invaluable skills and approaches to ingrain cultures of transparency and accountability from their governments to their people and were exposed to both current and effective strategies for successful implementation of Freedom of Information legislation where legislations exist. The study practical approaches to operationalise the Freedom of Information Legislation were used where participants learnt to monitor and evaluate government compliance with the legislation; to include skills on using modern ICT tools. For those countries with no current legislation on the Freedom of Information, the conference played a part in increasing collaboration, peer learning, networking and information sharing on Freedom of Information and examined strategies for the enactment of this legislation.
The conference also created a forum to springboard for future collaboration and partnership in the struggle for
FOI legislation to further enhance access to information in the world.

5
The conference drew a total of 78 participants from the countries of Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Nigeria,
Mozambique, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Zambia, Senegal, Cameroon, USA, Hungary Budapest, Ghana,
Madagascar and Uganda.
The conference was facilitated and moderated by Freedom to information gurus at not only the National level but the regional and International level.

6
Gratitude is extended to the following without whom the conference would not have been a success;
 Those who provided Funds for the conference; Open society Initiative East Africa, Open Society Justice
Initiative, World Bank and Africa freedom of Information Centre.
 HURINET-U Staff
 Conference Facilitators
 Conference moderators
 Conference participants and
 Imperial Royal Hotel

7
Pg
Conference organizers
Foreword
Acknowledgement
Day one: Advocacy Strategies for Securing the Enactment of Freedom of Information
Legislation
9 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Conference Objectives
1.3 Participant expectations
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Conference Evaluation
10
11
11
11
Chapter Two: The Status of Access to Information.
2.0 The status of Access to Information in the World.
2.1 The status of Access to Information in the East Africa region and beyond
Chapter Three: Approaches to Advocacy
12
12
12
53
3.0 Challenges and solutions of the enactment of Freedom of Information
3.1 Effective FOI strategies
Chapter Four: Coalition Strengthening
53
69
84
Day two: Practical Approaches to effective strategies for ensuring the implementation of the Freedom of Information
Chapter Five: Gaps in Implementation 90

Pg
5.1 Gaps in implementation and practical solutions. 90
Chapter Six: Barriers to the Realization of Freedom of Information 95
Chapter Seven: Roles and Responsibilities of Civil Society and Government on Access to information 98
Day three: Monitoring Government compliance on the Freedom of Information
Chapter Eight: Effectively Handle a Culture of Secrecy 101
8
8.0 How to monitor information in a culture of secrecy- Usage of information
8.4 Skills on using modern ICT tools for monitoring Freedom of Information
Chapter Nine: Freedom of Information, the electoral process and elections in Africa
101
115
120
122 Chapter Ten: Designing an effective oversight mechanism – South Africa Experience
Way forward

Day one: Advocacy Strategies for Securing the Enactment of Freedom of Information
Legislation
9
1. O INTRODUCTION
The importance of this conference can not be overstressed. It addressed the most crucial issue of the day – freedom of information- which interestingly continues to be alluded to by both it advocates and foes in glowing terms albeit for different reasons:
“ when information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventually-incapable of determining their destinies”
President Richard Nixon 1972
Freedom of information is not a mere abstract concept to be bandied about or something simply ‘politically correct’ to say for public effect. It is a more serious matter that resonates in every facet of our lives and one that can make a difference in the lives of our constituents. We are not disinterested academics looking at a concept but activists engaged in a campaign to make freedom of information in regions a reality.
A conducive legal and institutional framework are a sine qua non for ensuring rule of law, good governance, constitutionalism as well as the promotion, protection and realization of human right. It is true in regard to freedom of information and is indeed the inspiration behind the work on the right of access to information in
Uganda.
HURINET-U hosts the civil society coalition on freedom of information (COFI), which fervently advocated for the enactment of a conducive access to information legislation and is now rolling out a campaign for its implementation.
Active participation in the Conference helped to create strategies for the next steps of action for increased information flow as a way that enhanced citizen participation in government decision making processes. The
Conference was a worthwhile experience where knowledge was gained, networks formed, and friendships made.

10
On behalf of the Chairman Board, HURINET, Mr. Mohammed Ndifuna, The National Coordinator
(HURINET-U) welcomed all participants to the conference and thanked them for having honored the invitations sent to them. He thanked Open Society Justice Initiative, Open Society Initiative for East Africa, Africa Freedom of Information Centre, World Bank Institute for the support offered in organizing the conference.
Kirunda Kivenjinja, Third Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Information and National Guidance, Uganda
Rt. Hon. joined conference participants on the second day and noted that Uganda has already has the Access to
Information Act (2005) and is leading in the East Africa region. He noted that access to information, that is in possession of the state or any organ or agency of the State is a constitutional right derived from Art. 41 of the
1995 Uganda Constitution which states that
“Every citizen has a right of access to information and records in the possession of the State or any public body except where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the State or interfere with the right to the privacy of any other person”.
He further observed that although the Act was passed in 2005 and came into effect on 20 th April 2006, one of the areas which has delayed its effective implementation to date has been the absence of regulations to give people who want information, the procedure for accessing records from a public body hence guide the implementation of the law.
The Minister informed the Conference that the Directorate of Information is planning a consultative workshop on Monday April 28, 2008 to enable representatives of CSOs, public bodies, and development partners deliberate and come up with a consensus on the draft regulations. This he said would enable the Ministry, thereafter issue the relevant Statutory Instrument for the Regulations that will ease the procedure of accessing records that are not only in possession of the State but private bodies.
 Expose participants to both current and effective strategies for ensuring the successful implementation of
Freedom of Information legislation.
 Build networks and increase collaboration.
 Build strategies on learning/knowledge and sharing on freedom of information with a view to increase information flow on government decision making processes.

11
 Design strategies for promoting FOI in East Africa and beyond.
 To learn about the experience of African countries regarding FOI and exchange information.
 Learn the gaps on implementation of FOI in Africa.
 Learn advocacy strategies for use on FOI
 Identify specific obstacles to effective implementation of the Access to Information Act.
 Learn about current developments on FOI in the East African region.
 Get skills on monitoring/evaluating Government compliance on FOI Law.
 Understand legislation and its impact on Access to information in Uganda and the broader East African
Region more especially Uganda.
 Build a network of organizations involved in Freedom of Information advocacy. This is not only to share information but also to develop a strong demand from civil society for that purpose.
1.4 Methodology
The conference was largely participatory with participants responding to the various presentations made.
Participants formulated strategies and made crucial recommendations to be used by Freedom of Information
Advocates in their respects countries.
1.5Conference Evaluation
 Participants were informed of both current and effective strategies for ensuring the successful implementation of Freedom of Information legislation.
 Networks were built and collaboration were strengthened.
 Strategies for promoting FOI in East Africa and beyond were developed and are yet to be adopted.

12
Eszter Filippinyi,
Programme officer Open Society Justice Initiative.
Only four countries in Africa have FOI Laws (Uganda, South Africa, Angola and Zimbabwe). Most countries in Africa do not have a law on Access to Information which makes it very important to talk about the right to know.
Accesses to Information was first adopted by Sweden in 1766, and currently over 70 countries have Freedom to Information laws with Indonesia having passed hers in April 2008. It’s imperative to note however that a lot needs to be done because adoption and implementation of this Law has increasingly become a real challenge. Countries with the FOI law find it hard to implement because there is not enough public awareness and use of the law, there is also lack of rules and regulations for implementation and awareness among government officials. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) stand to benefit from this Law and if they do not know how to use this laws then the Law remains a ‘paper tiger”. An other challenge is the harmonization of the FOI legislation wit other laws, that can easily undermine the free access, such us secrecy laws, data protection, archive law, media law.
A Network of Freedom of Information Advocates was created in 2002 and has members from all Continents, to share information on FOI related issues ( www.foiadvocates.net
). FOI have been developed, A similar
Network will be created for the Africa Region, by the Africa Freedom of Information Center (AFIC), which will facilitate information and experience sharing among FOI groups (both in English and French).
When advocating for the adoption of a new FOI Law, setting principles of FOI (e.g.: Art 19 Principles on
FOI, The Johannesbourg Principles, The Justice Initiative 10 Principles on the Right to Know, the Atlanta
Declaration) is essential in setting basic standards for the FOI Law that is important in giving a basis for challenging governments.as helps both the Civil Society and the Government to focus on the main issues to be discussed and agreed in order to create a real access to information system.
Promoting of FOI standards can be done in many ways: by awareness raising campaigns, through the media, in trainings with CSO and Government, during lobbying and using strategic litigation at the national or at the international level (like using regional courts like the East African Court of Justice, or the Africa
Commission, etc).
The struggle for Access to Information adoption is not only for developing countries but also the developed countries an example is of Britain that took 5 years to implement the law.

13
Prof. Jjuko
Faculty of Law, Makerere University.
Freedom of Information is adequate in terms of transparency and accountability. The law has a clear constitutional provision in Art.41 and Art.29. However, the right of information is restricted to the citizen’s right.
The existence of Access to Information Act (2005) is not an indication that there is freedom to information.
The Ugandan Constitution made provision that parliament must make a law but it was made 10 years later and after the private members bill tabled in parliament and did not come into force until 2005 but is not effective due to lack of rules and regulations.
In the context of EA, the existence of the law may constitute a substantial milestone. The Access to Information has got the basic principles around the World and has a very wide definition but does not limit it to information but to record principles of liability.
The law does not have the basic principles like the principle of variability, and harm test. The Access to
Information Law also excludes some important government organs like the cabinet, and judiciary.
The Information Officer do not have to demonstrate why information requests have been denied because it’s not provided for in the Law.
The Act does not also help accessibility of information held by private bodies.
In a culture of neo-liberalism and privatization of Government Institutions, access to information should be at hand with no procedural problems.
Procedural Challenges
 The culture of official secrecy. It was not modified i.e. the Oath Act compel government officials to swear an oath of secrecy and criminalizes giving and publishing of information. The Oath Act provides a secrecy where the President has no perimeters on what can be a secret or not.
Practical problems
 The regulations and rules were not made.
 Lack of awareness on the rights of the people and obligations of government officials.

 Lack of awareness on the side of CSOs.
 Need to test the limits of the right on freedom of information.
 In strategic litigation, with the lacking rules and regulations, the constitutional courts that are supposed to handle FOI cases are constrained with the Supreme court doing a little better.
Way forward
14
 Need to operationalize the law.
 Awareness rising.
Ms. Cissy Kagaba of ACCU making a presentation during the East African and beyond Conference on FOI
Freedom of Information Bill in Kenya is under discussion and has been presented as a private members bill and was scheduled to be finalized before Kenya election. Specifically, it had been scheduled to be finalized during the
6 th session of the 9 th parliament on the week commencing 16 th October 2007. However, parliament dissolved for elections.
There is no strong constitutional underpinning but the wording is in line with ICCPR. There is need therefore to reform the constitution.
There is an Official Secrecy Act which is the mother law that criminalizes disclosure of information and the public officials who join government even to those who are temporarily employed.
Kenya has many laws that hinder access of information in the country to include; the Fiscal Management Bill
(2006), Judicial Services Bill (2007), Public Officers Ethics (2003), CDF Act (Amendment 2007), and Money
Laundering Bill.
The Official Secrets Act criminalizes disclosure of all information.
In actual practice, a lot of information is available to the public in Kenya. Government ministries have websites, newsletters, Notice Boards. However, the concern is that the right of access is not consolidated into law and the practice is not standardized across all ministries.
Way Forward

 Transparency has been identified as an item in the Peace Agreement reached after a disputed presidential election in Kenya.
15
 Need for a constitutional review process.
Introduction
We disagree that structural issues on FOI are not the concern of the ordinary person. They are. The ordinary person when made to understand has not only the concern, but also a contribution to make. Our network consists of over 1300 groups run and managed by ‘ordinary people’ who take the FOI issues very seriously. Their response to the FOI campaign has been swift and sustained. The network activities, save for the training and
ODAC meeting facilitated by ICJ, has largely run the campaign with funds from member contributions and volunteerism.
The approach of the KENGO network includes:-
1.
Raising the issues around information: Access, affordability, relevance and the relationship of information with effective provision of other services e.g. Free Primary Education, Public Service Commission, etc
2.
Reducing the FOI draft bill into a manageable size: simplify, translate, distribute (we have a simple draft to explain to members what the law says) and have also got plenty of materials from the ICJ which we disseminate to network members
3.
Linking secrecy and denial of information to the current crisis in the country, and linking the enactment of the FOI law to successful resolution of political and social crisis, especially on the land and electoral issues.
4.
Beginning to implement the right to know: Our departure point is that the right to information is a human right, and from a right-based approach the network encourages members to make demands in order to:
(a) Bring pressure to certain offices: Huruma garbage collector’s case: flood city council with members requesting the same information. Cripple certain offices with constant demands for information so that the departments consider it cheaper to provide the information
(b) Hold People’s Tribunals on certain issues (Organize run and publicize open, unofficial and public information gathering processes on different issues with the limited information available. Our rationale is that if the people are involved, both the establishment and the political leadership will be inclined to

participate either to correct information or to defend positions. Either way, it will force the release of information required by the people.
16
(c) Enjoin the campaign with activities that interest the public. For instance, our network is organising a soccer league for women over 40 years old. They are fun to watch, and the matches we have had so far have drawn crowds that we disseminate information to, which is why we take seriously the printing of handbills and simplifying the laws.
(d) Borrow and import successful programs that work in other countries. Borrowing from the Indian experience, we hope to institute public social audits on Devolved funds (in Kenya there are at least 17 devolved funds) Our network in the vast Kibera slums, for instance, after seeing the audits on food rations, are interested in holding similar audits on the cost of toilets in the slum which we estimate may be some of the most expensive toilets in world with each toilet in the Kibera slum being alleged to have been built using fund allocation from several devolved funds and sometimes up to 10 NGOs!
(e) Organise civic education processes directed to the grassroots. Currently using 2 documentaries from
India and ODAC in South Africa as a pilot in our Nairobi networks. Present results are very promising.
(f) Creating a network of ‘People’s Platforms’ or People’s Parliament – open spaces for information exchange. In Kenya our network members have been and are a part of several People’s Parliaments, including one that has met daily for the past 15 years.
5.
Connecting FOI issues to our existing campaigns on trade (need to know what agreements, treaties and conditions exist for our government), debt (need to have public debt registers open), MDGs, Education, health, etc For example, last year during the global Stand Up Against Poverty campaign, our network held a procession in Nairobi on FOI as an important aspect of and weapon on the war against poverty.
6.
Already lobbying for the law: Printing handbills for dissemination to the public.
7.
Planning public information days: Days when the network will hold ‘information market days’ – our proactive measure to provide government and institutions with a platform to disseminate information.
Absent the law, we hope we can work with different departments of government to provide a platform for engagement. We mobilize the public, they supply information. So far we have a good working relationship with the Ministry of Youth Affairs, the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Ministry of Planning and National Development.
8.
Alongside the public platforms, develop public notice-boards where information gained can easily be posted for public access.
9.
Planning on documenting people’s experiences with information access and creating a Media Centre for dissemination of information.

KENGO gains thus far:
17
Less than a year into FOI, we have:
1.
Currently members of the FOI network in Kenya with an on-going FOI program for members
2.
Had training for members and partners facilitated by the ICJ, and are part of the participants in the
Village ICT initiative
3.
Had a workshop with Mukelani Dimba of ODAC to share experiences with network members who are now using films (documentaries) from South Africa and India to organise for advocacy around
FOI
4.
Have network members participate in several national TV programs on FOI
5.
Have held two processions on the FOI in the past 6 months
6.
Have participated in the petition for FOI in the past parliament
7.
Have on-going public screenings of the FOI documentaries in network meetings. With contributions from members we have acquired equipment to show the documentaries.
8.
Have already started the work towards the creation of the documentaries having purchased a camcorder with member donations.
9.
Have already started working on creation of 10 People’s Platforms this year. To that end we have a website to facilitate the sharing of information: www.peoples-parliament.org
10.
Have developed a manual for the establishment of such platforms which we hope to distribute for members and any interested partners to use in developing similar platforms in their areas.
11.
Have also developed a ‘Mkutano Kijijini’ tool kit to enable members to organise, document and hold public information gathering meetings. The network currently holds public meetings- barazas – on different issues.
12.
Presently working on lobbying for the FOI bill, printing of handbills for dissemination to the public underway, regular meetings currently being held by network members, working towards action-based approach (Designated action days: Sit-ins in government offices, processions, direct lobbying of MPs, using the network’s strength to initiate action in all regions)
13.
Network and partner with government departments that are willing to work with us and showcase the positive results of partnership, the value of giving information and advantages of having information access, not just from government to the people, but also as a means for government departments to gain feedback from the people.
14.
Working towards the creation of a Media for Peace and Development (MPD) Center for dissemination of materials gathered or created by the people. Provide a facility through which whistle-

blowers can disseminate information with confidence and protection. Considering using an offshore website: already have a website www.kenyansforchange.org
18
Introduction
The introduction of multiparty democracy in the country in 1992 marked another step towards realization and enjoyment of basic human rights.
Since then, liberalization of economy has formed part of the major government plans and policies. A number of public corporations were privatized and transferred into the hands of foreign investors. In turn, the so called investors have started to control the national economy.
One of the impacts of economic liberalization of Tanzanian main economy was redundancy and unemployment.
People started to question now and demanded information relating to how the national income is distributed, what rights people who became redundant and jobless have, how land is distributed and many other questions.
The role of the media has also changed from the one of informing, entertaining and educating. Media today has become the mouthpiece of majority Tanzanians who cannot access public information. The media has been engaged in setting the national agenda, stimulating national debates and conducting investigative stories relating to crimes of corruption and public fund embezzlement.
Although the media has taken much space in campaigning for access to information, other efforts have been taking place at both national and International level.
The adoption of the Windhoek Declaration in 1991 and the creation of both national and international bodies aimed to promote access to information in the region and has added value to the campaign.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) would be the right example to such efforts. It was established in
1992 following the Windhoek Declaration of Press Freedom that was made in 1991 by senior journalists and media practitioners within Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.
Status of Access to Information in Tanzania
It is my considered belief that the participants to this workshop are aware of basic international instruments governing Access to information. To mention just a few, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights,

1981, and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa that was adopted by the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights during the 32nd Session, 17 - 23 October, 2002 at Banjul, Gambia.
19
The united Republic of Tanzania is a party to all the above- mentioned international instruments.
Back to the national context, the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended in 2005) is a supreme guiding document on the subject. In its Article 9(f), the Constitution directs all government authorities to consider, whenever making any policies or in execution of their functions, that human right is respected in accordance to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
Besides, Part three of the Constitution provides for the Basic rights and duties. Such rights and duties recognized in Part Three are enforced by courts in accordance to the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994 (Cap.
3, R.E. 2002). Article 18 of the Constitution, which falls in Part three as amended in 2005, provides that:
“Every person –
(a) has the freedom of opinion and expression;
(b) has the right to seek, receive and impart information regardless of national frontiers;
(c) has the freedom to communicate and has the right of not being interfered with in the course of his/ her communications; and
(d) has the right to be informed at all times of various events which are of importance to the lives and activities of the people and also of issues of importance to society.”
Being the mother law of the land, the constitution has to be adhered to by all other written laws. Any provision of law that curtails the constitutional provision is subject to annulment by court order declaring the same to be unconstitutional. The procedure for such annulment and its impact on a respective law is provided by the
Constitution and the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, 1994 (Cap. 3, R.E. 2002).
Other Written Laws
In enforcing the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977, the government has attempted to enact various pieces of legislation with a view to promote or restrict access to information.
The regulation of media, both electronic and print media, through Acts of Parliament is a one of the attempts of the government to control access to information. The exercise of a constitutional right under Article 18 to access information through any medium of choice and without frontiers is governed by the media laws.

20
The Newspapers Act, 1976 (Cap. 229, R.E. 2002) is one of the leading media laws that govern print media. The
Act contains various restrictions on the type of information that should be published through media. It proceeds by criminalising certain conducts that would otherwise be treated as civil wrongs (Torts). Defamation, for example, has been criminalized in Tanzania. Such wrong that deals with the attack to one’s reputation is criminalized. Courts have used the provisions of the Act to award exorbitant damages to plaintiffs in defamation cases regardless of the fact that such people were public officials, in which case the public interest to know would be invoked.
Other offences such as sedition, inciting violence and publication of false news have been created by the
Newspapers Act. Media is, therefore, obliged to conduct self censorship in order to avoid the commission of such offences. In so doing, the public could be denied their constitutional right to access information because of increased restrictions.
The Act also empowers the Minister to prohibit publication of newspaper when he is of opinion that it is in the public
interest or in the interest of peace and good order so to do. The Law empowers the President, in his absolute discretion, to restrict importation of publication if he is of opinion that the importation of any publication would be contrary to the public interest.
1
The National Security Act, No. 3 of 1970 (Cap. 47, R.E. 2002) contains no specific meaning of the phrase
“national security”. The interpretation may be drawn from what is stated to be classified matter/ information, the publication of which amounts to an offence against the Republic.
The National Security (Classified Matters) Notice, G.N. No. 133 of 1970 made under Section 2(1) of the Act, however, provides what are classified matters. They include all documents and letters prepared or addressed by or to or on behalf of the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania or any specified authority and which are marked or stamped with the word "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret". Such words have been used on a number of documents to restrict public access to records and information in custody of the government or any specified authority. The procedure for stamping such documents is not specific.
The Public Service Act (Act No. 8 of 2002), Cap. 298 prohibit disclosure of information by Public servants and members of the Public service Commission to unauthorised person. Section 18 (3) requires that the provisions of the National Security Act should apply in relation to that offence. Both the person disclosing information and the person receiving information are criminally liable for an offence under Section 18 (1) and (2) of the Public Service
Act.
1 Supra, Sections 26- 37

21
The Public Leadership Code of Ethics Act (Act No. 13 of 1995), Cap 398 was enacted to establish code of ethics for certain public leaders, to provide for the organisation of the Ethics Secretariat and for related matters with or incidental to them. Section 4 of the Act provides a long list of Public leader.
The Act requires all public leaders to make declarations of all property or assets owned by, or liabilities owed to him, his spouse or unmarried minor children. (Section 9(1)) Section 20 of the Act requires a register of declarations made by public leaders. The Minister is empowered to make regulations to prescribe the manner in which members of the public shall inspect the register. (Section 20(3))
According to the Public Leadership Code of Ethics (Declaration of Interests, Assets and Liabilities) Regulations,
G. Nos.108 of 1996 and 261 of 2001, members of the public may inspect the Register upon satisfaction of the conditions that a person wishing to make inspection has lodged with the Commissioner a complaint against a public leader; on his assessment, the Commissioner is satisfied that the complaint is genuine, relevant and was made in good faith; and an inspection fee of one thousand shillings has been paid. (Paragraph 6(1)
Paragraph 7 of the same Government Notice, however, prohibits any disclosure of information obtained from the register to other persons. Such a restriction overrides the overall purpose of disclosure as public leaders cannot be accountable to people. The conditions for inspecting the register itself bar public access. One must have, for instance instituted a case against a public leader. A question is how can one institute a case against such leaders and allege corruption or any other issue relating to properties or assets while he/she is not allowed to know the leader’s properties at first instance.
The Films and Stage Plays Act (Act No. 4 of 1976), Cap 230 was enacted to provide for regulating the making of cinematography films, exhibiting of cinematography pictures and performance of stage plays and for the licensing of theatres and to provide for related matters.
No film should be made without permit granted by the Minister. A film permit, however, is not necessary for the making of a film by an amateur for private exhibition to his family and his friends. The Act also establishes the
Central Censorship Board and every Regional Censorship Board. The Board is empowered to examine poster or description thereof and approve them for public exhibition.
Apart from the foregoing laws, a serious note should be taken in relation to the new forms of colonialism in the independent States. According to the General Loan and Stock Act (Ordinance No. 21 of 1948) Cap. 255 which is applicable only to the raising of loans in England, and nothing, loans under the Act are raised by debentures or stock. Section 4 of the Act requires the principal moneys and interest represented by the debentures or stock issued under the Act to be charged upon and payable out of the general revenue and assets of the
United Republic. This is a liability to every Tanzanian and taxpayers at large.

22
Despite the fact that the liability is vested upon Tanzanian taxpayers, they have no access to the terms of the loan agreement entered. Moreover, the registry for such debentures is “ kept for that purpose at the office in
London of the Crown Agents”. Even the notice on debenture and stocks is supposed to be published in the newspapers circulating in London (the London Times newspaper). Only a few Tanzanian, if any, can access this newspaper to know what is happening to the debenture issued by Tanzanian Government.
This is a great limitation to accessing information. Why should information about Tanzanian government be published in foreign country and not within Tanzania? How can we eradicate poverty without being informed of liabilities vested on us through loans obtained by our Government- the government of the people?
The proposed government Bill on Freedom of Information in 2006 has enlightened a new era of Access to information. The proposed Bill that was developed by the Ministry of Information, Culture and Sports was seriously objected to by the stakeholders.
The main grounds for its objection were the departure from the existing international standards on Access to information regime. The proposed bill contained provisions that, if enacted into law, would have curtailed access to information held by public and private bodies than ever before in the history of Tanzania. It contained a lot of exemptions and the drafting was vague, thus containing loopholes during interpretation.
The Records and Archives Management Act, (Cap. 309, R.E. 2002) still maintains the thirty years rule restrictions to accessing public records.
Apart from the continued existence of laws that curtail access to information, Tanzanians have been able to access certain type of basic information through various means.
The information of Parliamentary debates is now aired live through the national Broadcaster (TBC) and other independent Television stations. Apart from media coverage of the Parliamentary debates, the effective uploading and downloading of information posted on Parliamentary website has enabled easy access to parliamentary Bills, hansards, update information, Committee Reports and photographs. Besides, one can access contact information for all Members of Parliament through such website.
The Government of Tanzania Website is also another opportunity for delivering information to the public. Both the website of the Cetral government and the Ministerial and Departmental websites are useful in delivering certain information. Such information as the procedure for Paying Taxes are found on the Tanzania revenue
Authority website, Business Registration and Licensing information are found on the website of the respective authority.

The government has purposely promoted the use of computer related communications in the recent years. The use of ICT in delivering public information is seen as an opportunity to some Tanzanians.
23
Such approach, however, is tainted with the fact that the majority population of Tanzania live in rural areas where internet and ICT generally is still a dream leave alone the mobile telephone.
A survey that was conducted by IDASA/ODAC in collaboration with MISA-TAN in 2004 has indicated that accessing information in Tanzania by a normal citizen is difficult. It is easy for a few elites living in urban cities to access information because of the infrastructure available.
It is worth noting at this particular time that there is no Access to information legislation enacted in Tanzania yet.
The Practical Implications
Apart from the legal implications of Access to Information in Tanzania, there are some practical implications that hinder public access to information.
First, the persistent culture of secrecy amongst public officials had continued to govern their behavior on disclosing information.
Second, arrogances and lack of clarity on one’s Terms of work have been mentioned as factors for non- disclosure of information. Some people are not conversant of what falls within and what falls outside their powers.
Third, fear to loose jobs has also contributed to certain extent. This is serious where no exact terms of reference, no specific Monitoring and evaluation system and where there is no rule of law. Guaranteeing access to information which the supervisory authorities think should not be disclosed might cost someone to lose the job.
Fourth, absence of communication policies in workplaces might also lead to receiving wrong information from the authorities. With the access to information policies, it is easy to avoid confusion on the mandate and powers to deliver information to the public.
Fifth, desire to remain in power has also been mentioned as one of the causes for not guaranteeing access to information. The people in authority would like to guarantee simple information which would not amount to criticism from members of the public. Where there is no criticism, it is easy to remain in power because no serious social challenges would be addressed against the government of the day. Many public leaders would prefer leading ignorant population.

24
Finally, persistence of crimes such as corruption, graft and embezzlement of public funds would as well favour non- disclosure of information. Guaranteeing access to information would be used to reveal such crimes, this distrust to the government of a day.
It is with the support of joint efforts of citizens together with the government and other partners that we can achieve the desired objectives of access to information as recognized by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 59 (1) passed in 1946 where it is stated:
“Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated”
A short account of Access to Information campaign in Tanzania is made from 2006 when the government of
Tanzania published its proposed Freedom of Information Bill, 2006. Media Stakeholders organized themselves and held a one day encounter at the Sea Cliff Hotel, Dar es Salaam on December 13 th 2006 to discuss the government proposed Bill.
After having expert analysis of the Bill, media stakeholders resolved not to accept the Bill as it was. Instead, three media related organizations; Media Council of Tanzania (MCT), Media Institute of Southern Africa –Tanzania
Chapter (MISA-TAN) and Tanzania Media Women’s Association (TAMWA) were asked to mobilize their resources and join to campaign for a better freedom of Information legislation, thus objecting the government proposed Bill.
Such resolution gave strength to the establishment of the Freedom of Information campaign Coalition in
Tanzania. Other organization took interest and joined the coalition to make the total coalition members eleven as of now. Other member organizations are the Legal and Human Rights Center (LHRC), Tanganyika Law Society
(TLS), Tanzania gender Networking Programme (TGNP), Tanzania Legal Education Trust (TANLET), and
Media Owners association of Tanzania and the National Organization for Legal Assistance. Others are Article
XIX (based in the United Kingdom) and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives –CHRI (based in India).
The Coalition has undertaken the campaign since 2006 to date. Two stakeholders proposed Bills were developed as an alternative to the government bill. These are the Right to information Bill, 2007 that was submitted to government in August 2007 and the Media Services Bill, 2008 which is at its final stage.
Stakeholders’ inputs have been solicited and obtained throughout the country. A team of lawyers has been maintained in Tanzania which made a tremendous job of tireless drafting and consideration of new inputs at each stage. The Lawyers’ Team is lead by a senior law lecturer at the faculty of Law, Dr. Edmund S. Mvungi, who is also here with us.

25
The Coalition has successfully managed to stop the government move to table the Freedom of information Bill to Parliament in April 2007 until now. Instead, the government has officially appreciated the efforts done by the coalition thus promising to honour the stakeholders’ inputs as soon as the Media Services Bill is completed on the part of stakeholders.
You will note that for about two years now, the Coalition has been engaging in developing the stakeholders’ alternative proposals. This is basically an intellectual input to the campaign that needs to be addressed with caution. Whatever the stakeholders wish to propose to government must get the support of people being represented. That component is one of the issues that would now lead us to the other topic on the problems faced on Access to information campaign.
Challenges on Access to information Legislation
Campaigning for an access to information legislation is not an easy task. There are a number of challenges to that.
Such challenges include:
(i) Creating Public Awareness of Access to information
There is a need to create public awareness of what is access to information and its connection to their daily lives.
People need to see it being done and not to see what is ought to be done. The demands to know and the knowledge how to imply the information obtained in solving social, economic and political problems facing different people at different stages of life need to be addressed. The message must be clear and unambiguous to specific group of people or community.
Lack of Public awareness could be a dangerous tool against an ATI campaign it different messages or ambiguous messages are being sent to public.
In Tanzania, for example, while the Coalition was sending out messages to communicate the importance of a better access to information regime, some members of the public and sometimes from the same organizations forming up the coalition would also send out different messages that were confusing.
(ii) Mobilizing people in action
There is a need to mobilize people in action. Those running an ATI campaign must be able to identify their allies and mobilize them together with other people in order to form a strong majority support movement. Mobilizing people in action need to be done strategically. In our coalition, we were able to assign various duties to different people within the coalition. Where necessary, the support of members of political parties, Legislators and grassroots people would be involved to make the message well delivered.
Measures must be taken to make sure no important stakeholders are left behind.

26
(iii) Putting pressure on government
There is a need to put pressure on the government and decision makers in order to promote access to information. We are all aware that most governments in the world, including the US government, are not ready to guarantee maximum disclosure of information. Unless there is consistent pressure from the stakeholders, the government would not grant access to information.
The local and foreign media outlets must be utilized in delivering the campaign materials to public. A media strategy could be the best methodology if well designed in order to maintain the pressure.
Members of the campaign team should as well avoid issuing contradictory and ambiguous statements to the public.
(iv) Funding
An Access to information campaign is one of the costly campaigns.
The organizations undertaking the campaign must try to mobilize resources to support the campaign activities.
Without funding, an ATI campaign could easily fail because of fund. In order to achieve the desired objectives, funding is unavoidable for an ATI campaign. We need fund to make publications and publicity, organize workshops and communication.
(v) Resistance to change
In certain occasions, the people in authority might be well aware of the importance of access to information legislation. However, due to a number of factors such as culture of secrecy, fear of losing power, arrogance or any other reason best known to them, they might form a stumbling block to the campaign.
In Tanzania, those who are normally opposing the idea of having the best FOI legislation are people who were previously campaigning for the same legislation.
General context
The Rwandese context of the freedom of information can be discussed by looking at 2 different perspectives related to how one can access the information and how can one enjoy the right of giving information. This goes two ways the Information Officer to Channel the information and the community or citizens who benefit from the information.

Information has been availed to the community through a multiplicity of radio stations and a variety of newspapers.
27
However, the regulation of information flow is controlled by the Government within the Ministry of information which works hand in hand with the High Press Council, Rwanda Journalists Association, and different other bodies. In Rwanda, there are other provisions of which promoting the freedom of information has been done.
The Government has ratified international instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Treaty, Civil and Political Rights Treaty, and African charter for Human and People’s Rights.
Though Rwanda has not Law on Access to Information yet, the review of the existing legislation is ongoing and the draft is already at Parliament level and different activities are undertaken to lobby and advocate for an accurate and appropriate legislation.
However, different mechanisms are used to ensure the access to the information: Press conference are held monthly by the President of the Republic and Ministers, there is an Accountability Day where government officials (especially at the central and local levels have to explain how they handle issues related to their offices,
Government action is controlled by Parliament, Institutions like the office of the ombudsman, the National
Commission for Human Rights, etc.
FOI challenges in the East African Community context.
The East African Community meets a number of challenges when advocating for FOI implementation and a number of these include;
 Language barrier
 The illiteracy level of the East African Community population
 Insufficient financial support.
 Insufficient infrastructure.
 Insufficient skills of FOI Advocates and the Media.
 Lack of public awareness
These challenges have got implications in the implementation of the FOI Law;
Mr. Ahamed Faisol of Indonesia sharing their FOI experience to the audience

 Credibility of received information
 Corruption
 Lack of protection for whistle blowers
Recommendations;
28
 Strengthening capacity of CSOs for monitoring and evaluation tools when it comes to holding government officials for giving information
 Awareness rising for communities to make local leaders accountable
The Right to Information in Ghana is a constitutionally guaranteed right enshrined under Article 21 (1) (f) of the
1992 Constitution which provides that;
‘All persons have the right to Information subject to such qualifications and laws as are necessary in a democratic society.’
It is on this basis that the exercise of the Right to Information is considered to be a substantive right to be enjoyed by all persons subject only to lawful and justified exceptions.
Attempts to put this right into effect emerged in 2002, when the Government through the Attorney-
General/Ministry of Justice drafted the RTI Bill, specifying among others procedures governing access to official information by the public, obligation to publish, procedures for accessing information held by Government as well as private bodies, (that is in 3 instances; protection of fundamental human right, preservation of private safety and protection of public interest), time limits for disclosing information, reviews and appeals and the creation of an oversight body for the enforcement of the law. However, whereas the Bill incorporated some of the basic provisions of a model law, the draft fell short of international best standards in many respects such as; broad exemptions that undermined the full enjoyment of the rights, expensive fees structures, weak penalties and the lack of an effective independent enforcement organ to mention but a few.
This status-quo compelled various civil society organizations to combine efforts through the framework of the
RTI Coalition, Ghana to serve as a civil society monitoring group advocating for the adoption by the
Government of a comprehensive access regime that compiles with international standards. The Coalition was established in 2003, comprising of a few CSOs, working on good governance with the objective of promoting

enhanced accountability and transparency in public organs, resolved to undertake an advocacy campaign towards the adoption of the Bill.
29
In 2004, following the decision to form a Coalition and pursue the adoption of the RTI Bill on the Executive agenda, a needs-assessment was carried out in Ghana through a survey funded by Open Society Justice Initiative, which was intended to measure the level of access that Ghanaians had to important, non-sensitive government information. Under this survey, a total of 142 requests for information were submitted to various government institutions. Of this, 124 represented requests for information with the remaining 18 representing promotional requests. The outcome of the survey revealed that approximately 70% of the total requests submitted met with mute refusals, 4% of the requests were not accepted and 3% orally refused. Only 7% of the requests were sufficiently granted in a timely manner. These results indicate the inadequate level of information disclosure practiced by the Ghanaian government agencies and thus indicates the relevance of having a RTI law in place.
Following this outcome, the Coalition decided to embark on an intensive advocacy campaign through targeted advocacy and educational programs highlighting the necessity of the Bill to the nation’s democratic governance by citing the results of the survey as indicative of the gaps in information access by the public.
Similarly, as part of its activities, the Coalition among others, decided to embark on a campaign to influence the review of the Bill into a model law based on established principles of international best practice and facilitate its passage into binding law. These principles are as follows: a.
Maximum disclosure b.
Obligation to publish c.
Limited scope of exceptions d.
Standardized process to facilitate access e.
Minimal fees for access f.
Open meetings g.
Disclosure takes precedence h.
Promotion of open government i.
Protection for whistleblowers
Executive Commitment to FOI
It must be noted that the Government’s action in drafting the initial
Bill on RTI demonstrated the strongest commitment so far expressed

Mr. Edetaen Ojo narrates to the conference the Nigerian context on
Freedom of Information
30 by the Executive in relation to FOI. Although the Bill did not meet the requisite minimum standards, taking action to draft the Bill was a fair illustration of minimum support from the Government albeit overtime, this zeal is seemingly wavering.
The purpose of the Bill is to give substance to the Constitutional provision by providing for a.) Access to official information held by government agencies, and b.) The qualifications and conditions under which the access should be granted.
In 2004, the Government of Ghana committed itself to the World Bank, that it would enact an FOI Law as part of the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy emphasizing that having such a law in place was essential in addressing the nation’s developmental concerns. A similar position was expressed by Ghanaian President J.A. Kufour, during his State of the Nation Address in 2005 when he stated that the Government was committed to pass the
FOI law as a matter of priority. In that same year however, the only progress that was registered on the Bill was, simply to review it in light of suggestions made by civil society, through a Critique that was drafted and submitted by the Coalition on the RTI, Ghana.
The Critique among others highlighted the need to narrow the exemptions subject to the harms test, which was applied inconsistently, that is to some and not to all provisions such as broad exemptions of information relating to national security as well as information held by the Executive. The need to reduce the timeframes within which, applications for requests for information are responded to, that is a reduction from 30days to 14 days, the creation of an efficient and independent review mechanism and an independent enforcement body among others.
Some recommendations such as timeframes were addressed but most absurd was the elimination of private bodies from being bound by the provisions of the Bill, meaning that although the public’s right to information had been granted, it was only limited to information held by government agencies and not private bodies even those operating as government agencies.
In 2007, the Coalition through its Secretariat, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Africa office, organised an African Regional Conference on FOI with participants from various Commonwealth countries to share experiences, highlight FOI trends in Africa and address key FOI issues. The event obtained considerable media attention especially on the local scene following calls by the minority leader in Parliament to pass the FOI law of Ghana without further delay. Two days after the event, the Government issued a statement in the media

stating that Ghana’s RTI Bill had been forwarded to a Commissioner responsible for Statute Law Revision, to review it and collect views from the public regarding the Bill.
31
However, it was still of concern that despite such pronouncements, the President went ahead to state that Ghana was not yet ready to pass the FOI law claiming the lack of appropriate structures. This was similarly endorsed by the AG and his Deputy who claimed the lack of resources was justifiable for a delay in the passage of the Bill.
This was a week after former President Obasanjo of Nigeria had vetoed the Nigeria FOI Bill on mere technicalities.
On September 28 th , 2007, RTK Day, the Coalition met with the Commissioner in a symbolic event to mark the celebrations by submitting another set of critiques and recommendations for his consideration. The critique outlined a total of 10 points stating the various provisions that needed to be reviewed such as the fees structure, an independent review and enforcement body, penalties, application of the Bill to private bodies among others.
The Commissioner has recently finalised his review of the Bill in which he addressed some of the concerns of the
Coalition regarding the Bill most importantly the need to lessen the AG’s powers due to the existing conflict of interest, by establishing the need for the AG to consult with the Public Services Commission and the head of the
Civil Service in the implementation of the Bill.
The Coalition has in the past met with the Parliamentary Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which expressed interest in the Bill but echoed fears of its implications on the disclosure of information on national security and the need to safeguard such information from non-disclosure in the overall interest of the public.
In practice, without the RTI law, administrative secrecy still operates to undermine the public’s right to information. This is worsened by existing laws such as the Oaths Decree, Evidence Decree, State Secrets Act,
Public Records Archives Administration Act and the Internal Revenue Act, which all uphold the notion of official secrecy to forestall public access to information within their custody. Mining contracts for instance have been noted as a notorious example for including non-disclosure provisions that undercut the principle of maximum disclosure. The Extractive Industries and Transparency Initiative, under the ‘Publish what you pay campaign’, spearheaded a movement promoting disclosure of information relating to mining activities.
Most recently in March, 2008 the AG, following an enquiry posed by an opposition member of Parliament, issued a statement in Parliament regarding the Government’s position on the RTI law, stating that the Bill is in the advanced stages of its conclusion but deliberately omitted to specify when the Government plans to forward the
Bill to Parliament.

32
It is worth noting that for over 6 years since the first executive draft of the RTI Bill, the Bill has still not moved beyond the very institution that drafted it, the AG’s. This prolonged delay more than illustrates that whereas the
Government is not entirely opposed to the Bill, there is a looming reluctance to enact it as a matter of priority.
To date, the public is not sure whether the Kufuor Government intends to pass the legislation before leaving power or not. Suffice to note that the first quarter of the year, 2008 has thrown up a number of debates relating directly to the issue of FOI such as the acquisition of a Presidential Jet, details of which were not clear to the
Public and Parliamentarians, the Oil Discovery debate and the need for transparency in its exploitation. But these have still not persuaded the Government into prioritising the passage of the Bill.
Coalition – Profile
The RTI Coalition, Ghana has been in the forefront of the campaign for the enactment of the RTI Law. The
Coalition among others, has taken proactive measures to disseminate information relating to the relevance of the
Bill to cross sections of the Ghanaian community through workshops, dialogues with Cabinet members,
Parliamentarians, news articles among others. This has had some impact witnessed in the growing public discussions on FOI as one of the key national priority issues.
This year, the Coalition has purposed to undertake a high-level advocacy campaign targeted at political forums for
Presidential and Parliamentary aspirants to obtain their specific commitments to the Bill. This has included having on-on-one meetings with Political parties’ manifesto drafting committees, where the Coalition has submitted memorandum and possible texts on FOI to be incorporated in their manifestoes. Out of this interaction, so far two public commitments have come from presidential aspirants: Papa Kwesi Ndoum – CPP Flag bearer and
Edward Mahama of the PNC. The New Patriotic Party agreed to include FOI in its manifesto but it is yet to be made public. The NDC is the only party yet to make a public statement on its position on the law.
The Coalition has further deepened its engagement with the media, as key partners and stakeholders in the advocacy campaign by disseminating information to educate the media on the value of FOI to their work and to the public at large. On March 28 th , 2008 Coalition representatives made a statement at the Ghana Journalists’
Association Annual General Meeting urging the media to join the Coalition’s advocacy efforts. This had the effect of bringing on board a large number of editors, reporters, radio producers and mainstream journalists stationed in various parts of Ghana to widen the campaign beyond the confines of Accra.
A major shortcoming of the Coalition is its narrow base, and lack of grassroots representation. It has therefore been proposed to conduct a nation-wide campaign and expand the Coalition’s membership to organizations operating in the regions so as to strengthen its impact country-wide by building a strong network of organizations to spearhead the advocacy campaign.

33
Within this ambit, the Coalition plans to hold a national training conference on FOI for the broad membership with the objective of building consensus on how to undertake the campaign by enhancing the advocacy skills of all members and ensuring consistency by all members in the advocacy process.
The Coalition has also maintained as part of its key objectives, networking and strengthening its ties with advocates in and outside Ghana. For instance, at the UNCTAD XII CSO Forum, the Coalition organised a Panel
Discussion under the theme; ‘Promoting access to information as a cornerstone for development’, with participants from different countries and issued a statement within the CSO Declaration calling upon UNCTAD member states to adopt FOI as part of national development agenda.
RTI Coalition Objectives
1.
Strengthen the RTI Coalition into a permanent civil-society organization, independent of donor support and dedicated to giving Ghanaians their constitutional right to information. Once the RTI legislation is passed, the Coalition will fall into a civil society monitoring role.
2.
The successful passing of the proposed RTI legislation with amendments to conform to international standards. The legislation should embody the nine principles necessary for RTI legislation to conform to international best practices.
3.
Broad societal acceptance of the RTI legislation and understanding of the law and its usage to the public.
Increased awareness that a government has a duty to provide information to the people it governs.
RTI Coalition Strategic Plan;
1.
Write a proposed amendment to the RTI Bill and have it sent to Cabinet. Currently, the Coalition is in the process of completing another section by section critique of the Bill to be forwarded to the Statute
Review Commissioner.
2.
Lobby media outlets to play a heavier role in Coalition activities.
3.
Lobby Cabinet through advocacy meetings to increase awareness on the shortcomings of the bill.
Meetings with Cabinet members such as Minister of Finance, the President’s chief Advisor, Minister of
Information, Minister of Defence and Parliamentarians to garner support for the law. The end-goal of such advocacy would be to have the Bill sent back to the Attorney General to be re-drafted.
4.
On the Political front, the Coalition is also engaging with Presidential aspirants through agents in the public such as youth, who have been provided questions on FOI to pose to the aspirants.
5.
Compose research papers to be used as advocacy tools on the four specific areas regarding the new legislations: a.
The harmonization of existing law, such as the Oaths Decree, with the proposed RTI legislation.

34 b.
The shortcomings of the proposed legislation when compared to international best practices.
An extension of the Consolidated Critique. c.
The reforms needed in record-keeping and information sharing between ministries and other areas to ensure smooth implementation of the proposed legislation. d.
The role of the Attorney General in monitoring the implementation of the new legislation and the potential conflict of interest therein.
6.
The dissemination of the above research papers at workshops specifically tailored to different groups of stakeholders such as parliamentarians, civil servants and the media.
7.
Public campaigns; the month of May has been scheduled for a number of public events such as May 1 st ,
2008 Labour Day where a public march by civil servants shall be made and a statement issued to the
President, which shall incorporate the need to prioritize the RTI Bill. May 3 rd , World Press Freedom Day has also been selected for the Coalition working with the Ghana Journalists Association, to celebrate the day.
Presented by Edetaen
Ojo Executive Director,
Introduction
The Nigerian Constitution does not provide a strong constitutional basis for access to information as it only guarantees a general right to freedom of expression. On the other hand, a range of existing laws create a harsh legal environment for access to information as they prohibit the disclosure of information held by government bodies.
The campaign for the adoption of a Freedom of Information law in Nigeria is now in its 9 th year. The Freedom of Information Bill, which was first initiated in 1999, is the oldest Bill pending before Nigeria’s National
Assembly.
The Bill was passed by both chambers of Nigeria’s bicameral Legislature during the last administration and was presented in March 2007 to then President Olusegun Obasanjo for assent for it to become Law.
In April 2007, a civil society delegation met with the former President in an effort to persuade him to sign the Bill into Law. The former President declined based on some reservations he claimed he had in three areas of the Bill, namely:
Section 1: The Short Title of the Bill - Freedom of Information Act

35
Former President Obasanjo said he was opposed to the title of the Bill and would prefer that it should be called
“Right to Information Act” because, according to him, “Freedom” is absolute, while “Right” comes with responsibilities.
Of course, the short title of the Bill is hardly of any significance and it was difficult to see how this could have informed his refusal to assent to the Bill.
The long title of the Bill states its purpose quite clearly with no ambiguity whatsoever. It states that it is “A Bill for an Act to make public records and information more freely available, provide for public access to public records and information, protect public records and information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the protection of personal privacy, protect serving public officers from adverse consequences for disclosing certain kinds of official information without authorization and establish procedures for the achievement of those purposes and related purposes.”
Section 13(1): The head of a government or public institution may refuse to disclose any record, the disclosure of which may be injurious to the conduct of international affairs or the defence of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The former President said he was concerned that the Bill only excludes from public access records which may be injurious to the defence of Nigeria, but did not also exclude records which may be injurious to the “security” of
Nigeria.
Our view within the Freedom of Information Coalition is that the current text of the Bill adequately protects
Nigeria’s potentially sensitive defence records and information.
Besides, the protection of the internal and external security of Nigeria is also covered by the National Security
Agencies Act, which is one of the laws entrenched in Section 315(5) of the Nigerian Constitution. It extends to the protection of the documents and other acts relating to the security of Nigeria. The actions of the national security agencies established under the Act are protected from judicial scrutiny. In effect, the former President’s concerns are adequately addressed both under the Bill as well as under the National Security Agencies Act.
Section 13(2): However, in the interest of the public the court may override the refusal by the head of the government or public institution to disclose the information applied for.
The former President was concerned that with this provision, the courts are given the power to review any decision by the head of a public institution not to disclose any information and as such, heads of public institutions can be compelled by the courts to disclose any information which they would otherwise not want to disclose.

36
President Obasanjo’s view suggests that he does not believe that the refusal of a government institution to disclose any record or document under the proposed Law should be subject to judicial review to determine whether there is a public interest in the information being released.
Such a position is obviously untenable under a democratic form of government. One of the cardinal principles of the doctrine of separation of powers is the inherent powers of the courts to review administrative decisions not only to ensure that they are consistent with the Law, but also to prevent arbitrariness and abuse of power. The notion that the decision of a public officer can never be questioned in a court of law has no place in a democracy, particularly where that public officer is elected to serve the people.
Our position is that generally agreed the principles of freedom of information Laws include both the right of the courts to review all decisions of an administrative body and the consideration of “overriding public interest” in determining whether any information should be released, even if it ordinarily falls within the exemptions.
Current Status of the Bill
Following the refusal by President Obasanjo to assent the Bill, it is going through the legislative process afresh in the new National Assembly that was inaugurated in June 2007. Fortunately, unlike in the past when it took five years for the process to be concluded in the lower chamber before the Bill was transmitted to the upper legislative chamber which took nearly three years, the Bill is now being dealt with simultaneously by both chambers. The process has been relatively quick in both chambers and the Bill in now approaching its final stages in each of the chambers.
There are also positive noises emanating from the Presidency indicating that the new President, Umaru Yar’Adua intends to sign the Bill into Law when it finally comes before him.
However, it is fair to say that despite the delays, the efforts of the last eight years have been worth it. The campaign has caught public attention and the Bill is now squarely on the agenda of public discourse. It is one of the most talked about issues in Nigeria today. Newspapers have written more editorial comments on the Bill than on any other single issue of public interest in Nigeria in the last eight years.
It is now fashionable for public officers, both within the Executive and the Legislature, to publicly express their support for the Bill and give assurances that it will soon be adopted, evidently because of their assessment of the public mood with regard to the Bill.
The heavily subscribed Freedom of Information Coalition listserv is now arguably the most vibrant platform for debating issues of transparency and accountability in government as well as corruption in Nigeria
Challenges

37
The main challenge at the moment is that despite the existence of a broad-based Freedom of Information
Coalition, capacity within civil society to advocate in support of the Bill is severely limited. Very few members have the skills to carry out effective advocacy on the Bill. Fewer still have sufficient knowledge of the content of the Bill and related issues to speak confidently about it and respond to queries beyond merely calling for its passage.
In the post-enactment period, challenges to effective implementation would include:
 The poor state of record keeping and management in Nigerian public institutions
 A deep-seated resentment among civil servants and public officials for transparency and openness, accentuated by decades of operating in secrecy.
 What appears to be culture of excessive deference to authority among the vast majority of Nigerians and reluctance to question those in power.
Cameroon has got no law on Access to Information and a total secrecy and closeness on the Law. The
Government is very active in arresting those involved in graft. In a bid to graft Access to Information into Law, a campaign is being undertaken. A study was commissioned on Access to Information that started in November.
The study was carried out with support from Open Society
Justice Initiative with the aim of finding out how the situation was in the country. The study revealed the situation not to be as bad as earlier thought and also indicated that there was a legislation on archives and many others which could be used as a starting point to advocate for FOI. It was however noted that though specific issues are covered on the different legislations on Access to Information, both the Public and
Government Institutions are ignorant off them.
International treaties, provisions in the African
Charter and the Universal Declarations on Human Rights have continuously been used in Cameron as venues under which information can be accessed. The constititution integrates international treaties thus becoming a block.

38
Ms. Agnes Ebo’o talks of the Cameroon experience on Access to Information at the conference
The concern in Cameroon as follows;
 There are good laws in the country but the challenge is implementation. The most common argument is professional argument to confidentiality. In most cases, you have to pay for the information or you have to know somebody in high office to access information.
 Language barrier is another challenge. Cameroon is a bi-lingual country with two languages i.e. French and
English. This has increasingly made accessibility and understanding of information difficult.
 Lack of Infrastructure-like no availability of photocopies has hindered the access of information.
 Constitutional amendments affected the campaign on the passing of the bill on Freedom of information.
 Government only acts when under International pressure.
Strategy to adopt
To have strong diplomatic skills with the aim of getting the Executive to advocate for the Access to Information
Act. In Cameroon, Parliament cannot be relied on because there has never been a private members bill in the history of Cameroon parliament.
From the colonial past to apartheid, the South African Government came up with Official Secrets Act of
1956 and Protection of Information Act of 1982
On Freedom to Information, Government’s response to requests for information has been suppression of access to information on social, economic, and security matters, Security operations were shrouded in secrecy and
Government officials frequently responded to queries either with hostility or with misinformation.
In the advocating for the implementation of Freedom of Information the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act (PAJA) can not be ignored. The Constitution Section 33 states that; “Everyone has a right to just administrative action...” PAJA says, People have a right to:

 Fair, lawful and reasonable administrative action
 Reasons for administrative action that affects them negatively
South African Experience
39
The bill of rights
The bill of rights and the constitution uphold the right of access to any information held by the state or any information that is held by another person that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights
The Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000 (PAIA)
The Act came into force on 19 March 2001
Protection of Information Bill
The Bill was introduced by the Minister of Intelligence in 19 March 2008.
FOI/RTI activists are concerned that the provisions of the bill may be in conflict with the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Protected Disclosures Act.
In July 2003 a Committee
Conseil Supérieur de Lutte Contre la Corruption (CSLCC)
was formed and was in charge of developing anti-corruption strategy, legal framework and independent agency. Since March 2006, the committee has worked as a coaching key institution in integrity reform.
The public is ignorant of thé Access to information Law ; those who know about it consider it to be a liberal or restrictive law ?
FOI Advoacates should work at making, citizens stakeholders
• transparency=> decisions understood and accepted
• building confidence between public service and citizens
International commitments of Madagascar ;
• United Nations against corruption, article 10 : « enhance transparency in its public administration» (signed june 2004)

• African Union Convention against corruption, article 9: «access to all informations to help fighting against corruption » (signed june 2004)
40
Outside reasons ;
• International trend since the 90’s
• 40 countries have a law on access to information
Is it necessary to draft a law ?
•
Yes, because public services are unwilling to disclose their documents
•
A law would transform a favor into a right
Current Situation
•
Draft law still waiting for authorities approval
•
Civil society to commit
•
Linked with code of communication (media concern)
A liberal or restrictive law ?
• comparison of laws in differents countries : some countries have a very liberal law (USA, Sweden).
Others have a restrictive law (Romania, Poland)
• choosing the happy medium suitable for Madagascar
•
Define mechanisms of access to information
•
Who can access ?
•
With what procedure ?
• How to manage denial ?
Next Steps.
• Spread the project through civil society

• Lobbying among Parliament
• Launch a public campaign
41
Introduction
The campaign for Access to Information legislation commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act in Zambia started 15 years ago.
During the one party state of government of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda it was generally accepted that journalists were to behave in a “responsible” way.
This “responsibility” meant that the Press was to kowtow to State House and regurgitate whatever those in corridors of power vis-à-vis the President wanted the country to read or hear. Whatever was acceptable to the ruling party was acceptable reporting by the Press, acceptable comment in the media and acceptable entertainment in the newspaper, radio and television.
The state owned media turned into propaganda organs of the society
Mr. Fanwell Chembo of MISA at the
East Africa and beyond conference on
FOI in Uganda through the political party. This was so because the ruling United
National Independence Party (UNIP) had given itself the role of formulator of opinion or opinion leaders. Thus a culture of secrecy prevailed. Most public information was not available to the public. In addition, there were very few privately owned newspapers no privately radio stations that served as an alternative source of information for the public.
After 27 years of UNIP rule under Dr. Kaunda, the first republican President, and multiparty politics were reintroduced in Zambia and the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) party under the leadership of former Trade Unionist, Frederick Chiluba was ushered into office.
Historical Background to Efforts to Enact Freedom of Information Legislation
During the run up to the country’s historic presidential and parliamentary elections in October 1991, lack of access to state-controlled media and biased coverage in favour of the then ruling party, UNIP, was seen as a major threat to the democratic dispensation that had just been ushered in by the repeal of Article 4 of the One party
State Constitution, which prohibited the existence of political parties other than UNIP.

42
The biased coverage by state controlled media provided the impetus for change. The MMD the leading opposition party at the time viewed the public media as an important instrument to attain democracy. To this end, the MMD in its 1991 manifesto recognized that:
“Freedom of expression and the right to information are basic human rights…”
As a result, one year after MMD acceded to power, the MMD government in October 1992 organised a “National
Seminar on the Media and Democracy in Zambia – The Way Forward”. The seminar, which was organized by the
Information Ministry, appointed a Media Reform Committee (MRC) comprising representatives from a broad section of the Zambian society. The mandate of the MRC was to recommend to government ways in which the
Media could be reformed in order to advance press freedom and the democratic process. The MRC recommended the initiation of comprehensive constitutional and legal reform in order to democratise the public
Media.
Mwanakatwe Commission
One of the MMD’s key promises during the election campaigns of 1991, was that it would review the national
Constitution to strengthen the protection of civil liberties and to ensure the delinkage of the Party and government. Thus, in November 1993, two years after being in government, the Chiluba-led regime appointed a
24-member Constitution Review Commission headed by a former Minister in the Kaunda government, Mr. John
Mwanakatwe, to collect views from the general public and provide proposals for the content of a new
Constitution.
At the end of the exercise two years later, the Mwanakatwe Commission noted in its report that since democracy was a system of government rooted in the sharing and shaping of opinions, the free flow of ideas ought to be protected. In the same report it was noted that many petitioners were not happy about the veil of secrecy that surrounded the workings of government, as well as legal prohibitions created by the State Secrets Act.
The Commission further observed that an informed opinion was necessary in a democracy and that government was a natural custodian of public documents. The Mwanakatwe Commission noted however that administrative measures, as well statutory prohibitions, effectively denied citizens access to vital information. In view of the crucial role informed opinion played in fostering good governance, the Mwanakatwe Commission recommended that the right of access to information be a justifiable right. The implication of the recommendation of the
Mwanakatwe Commission was that all official documents would be made public, unless such documents have been classified as “secret”.
Unfortunately, the recommendation by the Mwanakatwe Commission was not accepted. It was argued by the
Chiluba-led government that the recommendation would compromise state security and disrupt the smooth

43 operations of government departments. The government instead proposed that legislation should be passed to prescribe declassification of certain documents and the release of any information. Thus, the government effectively thwarted the initiative to introduce freedom of information legislation.
In fact the government rejected nearly 70 per cent of the recommendations of the Mwanakatwe Commission.
However, six years after the MRC was appointed the Parliamentary Committee on Information and Broadcasting
Services observed that the government was not only delaying the implementation of the Media Law Reforms, but there appeared to be no political will to implement the reforms. Despite the sterling work undertaken by the
MRC in 1993, another meeting of representatives from media and legal institutions was held on 16 th June 1999, to consider the formation of a Task Force with mandate to review pieces of legislation that impede press freedom.
The Task Force chaired by Lusaka lawyer, John Sangwa, regretted the fact that government had not responded to the recommendations presented to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting services in September 1993.
On completion of its work, the Task Force recommended amongst other matters, that a Freedom of Information law be enacted.
In what appears to be donor conditionality, in February 2001, government produced a draft Freedom of
Information Bill (FOI) 2001. The draft bill was intended to be used for discussion purposes in order to assist government arrive at a position on the matter. As I said It would appear that the initiative to develop the bill was a result of government’s document –“Government for National Capacity Building Programme for Good Governance in
Zambia” – that it was committed to enacting the freedom on information law, as well as to meet donor conditionality. Various stakeholders made comments to the Bill that were submitted to the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting Services. Between February 2001 and December 2001, however, no action was taken on the draft Freedom of Information Bill.
Private Members’ Bills
In October of 2001, the country held its Presidential and Parliamentary elections. And for the first time in the history of Zambia, the opposition got a combined majority of seats in Parliament. Using this rare opportunity the media led by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Zambia agitated for a private Member’s Bill to press for the FOI enactment and other media law reforms in Parliament. Thus working with other media associations namely, the Press Association of Zambia, the Zambia Union of Journalists, Zambia Media Women Association and the Post Press Freedom Committee, the media sponsored the Bill to be tabled by the opposition.
On 5 th February 2002, the media associations commissioned a private law firm to draft the Broadcasting Bill, the
Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill (IBA), and the Freedom of Information Bill. They went ahead and published the Bills in the Government Gazette on 18 th October 2002. The Freedom of Information Bill was to

be presented, as a private Member’s Bill, by two Members of Parliament from the opposition and so were the two other bills.
44
Unfortunately, efforts by opposition Members of Parliament to present the three private member’s Bills were thwarted, when government invoked Article 81 of the Constitution which requires Bills with financial implications to be consented to by the President or the Minister of Finance before they are presented to the National
Assembly. After a number of consultations among the media bodies, opposition Members of Parliament and the government, the latter proceeded with preparing its own Freedom of Information Bill which drew heavily from the formulation by the media community. However, it must be noted, that, in fairness, that the media associations also had relied heavily on the draft Freedom of Information Bill published by government in 2001.
To this end, the media community and the government were thus largely agreed on the content of the freedom of information law. It is in fact estimated that 70 per cent of the content in the 2001 draft Freedom of Information
Bill initiated by government, was adopted by the media community with minor amendments. The government similarly adopted about 90 per cent of the Freedom of Information Bill as revised and drafted by the media community.
Salient Features of FOI
Below are some of the salient features of the Bill presented by the information Minister.
 Right of access to information
 Protection of whistle blowers
 Obligation to publish information
 Obligation to keep records
 Appointment of information officers
 Transfer requests
 Power of the public information commission
 Functions of the public information commission
 Procedure for access to information
 Maximum disclose and limited scope of exemptions
Ms. Sandy Coliver facilitating at the
Conference on FOI
Bill presented and withdrawn
On 22 nd November 2002, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services presented the Freedom of
Information Bill to the National Assembly for first reading. In presenting the Bill the Minister indicated that

45 freedom of information legislation was the backbone of representative government. Further, the Minister pointed out that freedom of information legislation contributes to economic and social development by enabling people to participate effectively in the process of government and to make informed choices in matters affecting their welfare. At the same time, the Minister noted that freedom of information legislation enable officials to benefit from public inputs which facilitates their decision-making.
However, on 18 th December 2002 in a surprise turn of events, the Minister withdrew the bill from Parliament before it could go for its final reading. The reasons for the withdrawal are to-date not clear although we hear that this was for security reasons. This “rumour” was confirmed by the then vice President, Nervers Mumba, who told MISA Zambia that because of the events of September 11, 2001 in the US, Zambia could not allow the Bill to be enacted. The media were further told that the government was still consulting with all stakeholders. We know that the state has sent people to the UK to find out how the Freedom of Information is faring there. Early this month, the Minister of Information and Broadcasting Services was still consulting with the Commonwealth
Secretariat in the UK over the FOI.
More Media Efforts
MISA Zambia and its partners, however, did not relent in its fight for a freedom of information law. A lot of sensitization efforts including, radio and television programmes, jingles, songs etc. were put in place. Behind the scenes the media kept on lobbying Parliamentarians and key people at the ministries of Justice and Information.
In 2002, the current Republican President, Dr. Levy Patrick Mwanawasa, SC., who took over from Chiluba started crusading for zero tolerance on corruption. This crusade has seen the prosecution of the former
President, Chiluba, who is in and out of court on corruption charges.
Seeing this as another window of opportunity the media has been using the corruption fight to push its agenda for the need for a Freedom on Information law, pointing out that without it, many corrupt practices especially among government employees would be concealed. The media has argued that corruption cannot be effectively fought in the absence of the Freedom of Information legislation.
In fact according to the 2005 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report, it is not coincidental that countries perceived to have the most corrupt governments also have the lowest levels of development or that countries with access to information laws are also perceived to be the least corrupt.
“In 2003, of the 10 countries scoring best in Transparency International’s annual corruption perceptions index no fewer than nine had legislation enabling the public to access government information”.

The report continues: “Of the worst countries to be worst in terms of corruption, not even one had a functioning Freedom of Information regime”.
46
Mung’omba Commission
On 17th April 2003, Dr. Mwanawasa announced the appointment of the fourth Constitutional Review
Commission headed by Mr. Willa Mung’omba, a lawyer.
For one year the commission conducted public sittings in all the 150 Parliamentary constituencies of Zambia.
They received both oral and written submissions.
On 29th December 2005 the Commission presented its final report to the President. The report noted that it had received submissions on the right to access public information, academic and intellectual freedoms; freedom of the Press and freedom of speech and expression. The petitioners argued that the public had a right to receive information including that held by the state.
The Commission noted that the Freedom of Information Bill was a positive development and should have constitutional backing if the right of access to information was to be realized.
In November 2007 the President appointed a body called the National Constitutional Conference (NCC) whose mandate is to look at the recommendations of the Mung’omba Constitution Review Commission as demanded by
Zambians and then come up with a “Constitution which will stand the test of time”.
The media community is well represented on the NCC and it is hoped that the Freedom of Information law will be constitutionalised.
Conclusion
On a positive note, President Mwanawasa, when officially opening Parliament on 11th January 2008 announced that the Freedom of Information Bill would be brought back to Parliament for enactment.
Be that as it may, the media is uncomfortable as to the contents of the bill that will be presented to the National
Assembly since we have not been given the opportunity to look at what is contained in the new draft Bill. This skepticism is not without cause. Last year some apposition Members of Parliament threatened that if all journalists were not to be subjected to the existing media ethics council they would then shoot down the Freedom of Information Bill when it is presented in Parliament.
However, the comforting aspect is that not all opposition members of Parliament are of that view.

We are, therefore, optimistic that, come December 31, 2008, the Freedom of Information Bill will have become law in Zambia. What we are not sure of though at the moment is in what form.
47
That is the challenge we have to grapple with between now and the time the final Freedom of Information Bill is enacted.
In Senegal, there is no law on Access to information and there is no bill advocating for Freedom of Information.
It’s with concern that French speaking countries, look at advocacy on FOI laws as a media issue. For10 years, the
Union of Journalists have been advocating for change of the law on libel.
 Talking about Access to Information is a concern for all citizens and then Art.48 guarantees freedom of information and freedom of the press.
 The draft bill (2005) was presented to approach RENAMO, FRONAMO parties in parliament but since then nothing has been done. RENAMO doesn’t hold sufficient seats in parliament so it depends on the ruling party.
 The challenge in the country is that there is information that is for public consumption and parliament consumption.
 There is individual lobbying and now there is new light at the tunnel. Recently, the president of
FRELIMO asked for the copy of FOI and now waiting for the response.
Opportunity: This year (2008), the country will host the Press International Day in Maputo an opportunity to exploit to further press those who are responsible.
Access to Information is a very popular law and information seeking has led to:
 Securing entitlements for the weak and the disadvantaged

 Unearthing of embezzlement and refund of money to the exchequer
 Exposure of instances of poor decision-making
 Imprisonment of Minister for evidence of wrongdoing
 Revitalization of participatory systems in local government
 Increased monitoring of government by civil society
 Pharma and GM Food MNCs brought to their knees on patents
However the Access to Information Law has had a bureaucracy strike back in the following ways;
 Proactive disclosure a non-starter at local government level
 Resistance can range from refusal to accept requests to wrongful denial
 Curbs being imposed through subordinate legislation
 Weak mechanism for internal appeals
 Cases piling up before Info Comms – 8-10 month long delays
 Reluctance of Info Comms to impose monetary penalties
 Poor compliance in the legislative and judicial spheres
48
Presented by Tanti Budi
Suryani
Why Indonesia needs FOI?
 Level of corruption in Indonesia compare with other country in the world is very high
 People cannot access any public documents easily so that they cannot reach their own rights.
 Advocacy on human rights, anti-corruption, and environment delayed by culture of secrecy
 People cannot fully participate on budget process because they don’t have any access to know the document of budget planning. For women, it is worst. The government regardless their involvement in every level of decision making process.

 Marginalized people cannot voice their unfairness situation without any information related to their rights.
(For example: the scarcity of fuel or oil or gas for daily life)
49
Adopting Process on FOI in Indonesia
 In 1999, Initiated by Indonesia Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), 40 Civil Society Organization joint commitment in the coalition on FOI in Indonesia.
 The coalition adopting FOI International principles and making the draft of Indonesia FOI Act. This draft gave to the parliament to go on adopting process.
 On September 2001, the parliament legally adopting this draft as their initiative. And start on legislation process.
 On 2004, Due to the election time, the parliament and president were busy on the electoral process and this draft did not the priority to discuss it in parliament.
 On 2005, 5 organizations from the coalition continue to advocate for this draft discussed again with the initial draft on the previous period. The parliament in 2004 – 2009 decides to adopt the previous draft as their initiative.
 28 September 2005, the parliament asking the letter from President (for appointed ministry of info and ministry of law and human rights) to discuss it in parliament on legislation processed. The draft of FOIA discussed again until 2 April 2008.
The critical issues on legislation process:
 The Government refused State Owned Enterprises included explicitly in category of public bodies
 There is justification to request the public information
 There is sanction for the user of public information who misusing public information.
 Information Commission potentially not became independent body because there is government regulation that regulates technical aspect on FOI Implementation.
Actions to response the critical issues before the Bill are passed:
 Petition that initiated by the Coalition gave to the parliament to consider four articles that really critical to delayed access to public information. This petition was supported by 625 civil society (groups and individuals).

 There is intensive lobbies, media campaign, public discussions, and intensive legal drafting to improves this draft by the members of coalition.
50
 On 3 April 2008, FOI Act that we call “The Openness of Public Information Act” was passed by parliament and government.
The Positive Achievement in Indonesia FOI Act:
 Legal guarantee for public on obtaining public information
 Obligation for public bodies to provide and publish public information under their authorities.
 Obligation to publish proactive publication
 Oversight bodies (Information Commission) without the government regulation to regulate the commission on technical aspect of FOI implementation
 Sanction for public officials in public bodies who don’t run their obligation to give the access to information to public.
 Harm Consequential Test to classify which information is open or not based on public interest not only in
IC, but It applies to all since the public officials classified the exemption of information in their public bodies.
 State Owned Enterprises is included as public bodies even though it is not explicitly on definition of public bodies and only on the one article which explain the detail which information of SOE can be accessed by the public.
The negative achievements in Indonesia FOI Act:
 Exclusion of private bodies which perform public function and have significant financially support by government as a public bodies.
 Exclusion of statement explicitly for State Owned Enterprises on definition of public bodies.
 Including NGOs on public bodies which have obligation extend to open the substantial financially support from other country. And NGOs don’t have mandate as a state organization.
 Definition of public information has to be related to public interest and state will make confuse the public officials in determining which information in that classification.

 The requesters only for Indonesia citizen. It is not acknowledge the right of other citizen and people who don’t have citizenship.
51
 Request of information still need justification. It can be potentially as a reason - legally or not - for public official to refuse it.
 There is no obligation to help the requesters of information that can not access information with any mechanism in this act.
 There is no obligation to provide as many as possible proactive publication on purpose to reduce the cost on answer the request of information.
 On article 17 (j) this FOI act acknowledge the exemption of information in other bill.
 There is no clear time frame for historical disclosure release.
 The Oversight Bodies is potentially not being independent because of the member of IC consist of government elements, not only civil society.
 Sanction for user of information is still there.
 This Act will take into effect after two years. It is too long time for implementing this FOI Act.
What we can do to use this FOI Act?
 People can start to exercise their right to know to have their own rights through request the public information.
 This act will be useful for supporting anti-corruption movement, reveal the human rights violations, advocacy on pro poor budgeting, gender budgeting, environmental damages, and good governance. So the civil society organizations have to use this FOI Act and bring their cases until litigation process or other steps on our appeal system.
 Monitoring requests on information to encourage the public bodies to develop good preparation
 Keep assisting and monitoring the forming of IC, government regulation, preparation of public bodies, raising public awareness to request information.

52
 During the discussions, it was noted that there was need for sustained pressure on the awareness of the law after enactment and that the media needed to take a great role for sustained awareness.
 It was also noted that with the Access to Information legislation, it was important to know when the right of information is being curtailed and when it is being regulated. This has continued to present itself as a challenge especially where the public demands too much and later misuses the information.
 It has been observed that in most countries especially in Africa, Access to Information legislation has come as a result of private members bills in parliament. It has also been noted that no sitting government will pass a law on freedom to information though there are existing mechanisms for CSOs to benefit from to push governments to pass legislation on access to information legislation.

53
In 1993, the whites-only South African government of the National Part and extra-parliamentary political parties, including the previously banned African Nation Congress (ANC) led by Nelson Mandela, met to hammer out a new, democratic political order. These talks produced a constitution requiring the creation of open and accountable political institutions and the election of a new government on the basis of universal suffrage 2 . The constitution was intended to serve as an interim instrument, until such time as a democratic government with a popular mandate could draft a final document.
Bill of Rights guarantees access to information
One of the most important aspects of the interim constitution was the introduction of a Bill of Rights designed to ensure equal protection of a broad range of human, socioeconomic and civil rights, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, belief, and other factors 3 . Among the rights upheld was that of access to publicly held information. Section 23 of the interim constitution stated:
‘Every person has the right of access to all information held by the state or any of its organs in any sphere of government in so far as that information is required for the exercise or protection of any of their rights.’ By entrenching an independent right of access to information – rather than leaving it to be protected by the right to freedom of expression, as has generally been the case in international human rights instruments – the drafters underscored its significance in South Africa's constitutional order 4 . Without this constitutional ‘anchor’ and the
2 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 200 of 1993 (the “Interim Constitution”).
3
Section 8(2) of the interim constitution stated: ‘No person shall be unfairly discriminated against, directly or indirectly ... on one or more of the following grounds in particular: race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language.’ The final constitution added pregnancy, marital status and birth to the list of grounds [section 9(3)].
4
Jonathan Klaaren, Access to Information, in Constitutional Law of South Africa, ed. Matthew Chaskalson (Pretoria: Juta & Co.
Ltd., 1996), 24-1.

broad political consensus that underpinned it, the subsequent civil society campaign for freedom of information legislation would likely have been stillborn.
54
Following the historic first democratic general election of 1994, the interim constitution's broad right of access to information was expanded further. Section 32(1) of the final constitution, enacted by the National Assembly in
1996 5 , guarantees ‘everyone ... the right of access to any information held by the state and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.’
Not only was the right of access to publicly-held information no longer qualified by the stipulation that the information be needed for the exercise or protection of a right, but a qualified right of access to information was also established with respect to private bodies and individuals.
Although the revised formulation of the right is more permissive in some respects than the interim right had been, the new wording indicated that early idealism was being tempered by the harsh reality of government and was to some extent already giving way to a more pragmatic or ‘hard-nosed’ attitude. This was evident in the final constitution's stipulation that the general right may be limited in two ways.
First, this right – and any of the rights identified in the Bill of Rights – may be restricted in terms of the constitution's generic limitations clause (sec. 36). As in the interim constitution, the limitations clause permits a right to be circumscribed only by legislation that applies generally to all – and then only if the limitation is
‘reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.’ In making the latter assessment, a number of factors must be taken into account, including the nature of the right, the importance of the purpose of the limitation, the nature and extent of the limitation, the relation between the limitation and its purpose, and whether there are less restrictive ways to achieve the purpose.
Second, the final constitution required that the right be fleshed out in terms of enabling legislation. The constitution that came into effect on 3 February 1997 gave Parliament three years to enact legislation to give effect to the right articulated in section 32(1) and to regulate its application 6 . Significantly, the legislation was
5 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.
6
Until the required enabling legislation was enacted, the general right of access to information contained in Section 32(1) of the new constitution was suspended, and the more limited right of access to publicly-held information found in the interim constitution applied. The interim constitution (sec. 71) required that the Constitutional Court review the final constitution to certify that it was in compliance with a set of fundamental principles (listed in Schedule 4 of the interim constitution).
Constitutional Principle IX read: ‘Provision shall be made for freedom of information so that there can be open and accountable administration at all levels of government.’ In its First Certification Judgement, In re: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 [1996
(10) BCLR 1253 (CC)], the court ruled that

55 permitted to include ‘reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state’ – to balance, in other words, the state's potentially competing obligations to protect citizens' information rights and to provide fair, efficient, and cost-effective administration.
Enabling legislation gives effect to the right
Shortly after the democratic government took office in 1994, it appointed a five-member Task Group on Open
Democracy headed by then-Deputy President Thabo Mbeki's legal advisor, Advocate Mojanku Gumbi, to draft appropriate enabling legislation.
The Task Group issued a preliminary report early in 1995 setting out in detail their legislative intentions and the principles underlying their approach to drafting. By August 1995, they had produced a draft bill, which had been based on consideration of the following international FOI legislation:
1. Federal: Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Australia)
2. Federal: Access to Information Act (1980) (Canada)
3. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act [Chapter F.31] (Ontario,
Canada)
4. The Official Information Act 1982 (New Zealand)
5. Right to Know Bill [Bill 187 – a private members’ Bill] (United Kingdom)
6. Freedom of Information legislation (United States)
By that stage Parliament had already set up an Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Open Democracy Bill and during their deliberations the members considered the laws which had been used by the Task Group but also added following foreign legislation:
1. Australia: although the interim right did not comply with the constitutional principles, the right of access to information was not a
‘universally accepted fundamental human right’. It therefore held that the temporary suspension of section 32(1) was reasonable if it was for the purposes of drafting and enacting legislation establishing ‘the practical requirements for the enforcement of the right and the definition of its limits’. However, the
Justices clearly linked the concept of ‘reasonableness’ in this case to the temporary nature of the suspension. They ruled that, should the required enabling legislation not be passed within the designated three-year window, the interim right would fall away and the expanded right in section 32(1) would become operative.

New South Wales: Freedom of Information Act 1989
South Australia: Freedom of Information Act 1991
Western Australia: Freedom of Information Act 1992
2. Freedom of Information Act, 1997 (Ireland)
56
3. Freedom of Information Bill as introduced in the House of Lords on 10 December 1998 and that Bill as amended in Parliament during 1999 (United Kingdom).
It took nearly five more years – and revisions so extensive that not even the bill's original name survived 7 – before the legislation was enacted. At a seminar on the eve of the draft's initial publication, participants were warned that
‘we must act fast because once the government gets used to doing things in secret ways their enthusiasm for access to information will drain away’. This was a prescient observation. Over the next two years, the executive arm of government chipped away at the draft proposals before releasing a much-altered bill.
The Open Democracy Campaign Group
Civil society played an extensive and influential role in helping Members of Parliament to craft the final Act. From the outset, civil society organizations took a keen interest in open democracy legislation, including its information access provisions. Despite the challenges of transition to democracy, which included diminishing foreign donor support, South Africa enjoys a large and thriving civil society sector, a substantial segment of which emerged from popular campaigns against apartheid and the socio-economic disparities it generated. Having worked for the realization of a democratic vision, many of these groups saw Open Democracy legislation as a crucial mechanism for the consolidation of participatory democracy, grassroots advocacy, and accountable government in South
Africa.
In October 1996, PIMS hosted a workshop entitled ‘Making a Difference: The Challenge for Civil Society
Advocacy in South Africa’ that brought together representatives of roughly thirty civil society organisations involved in social justice advocacy, as well as ten international delegates. The workshop participants identified access to information as one of the pivotal issues for effective advocacy in the democratic era. They acknowledged a need for timely information both about the content of policy debates – the policy options being considered by government officials and the data used to assess these options – and about the structures and processes used to decide policy. At the conclusion of the workshop, three organisations – the Human Rights
7 During the deliberations the Open Democracy Bill [B67-98] became the Promotion of Access to Information Bill and the
Protected Disclosures Bill.

57
Committee, the Black Sash, and Idasa's PIMS – were charged with investigating the status of the (then-stalled)
Open Democracy Bill, analysing the contents of the most recent draft of the Bill, and designing a campaign to promote enactment of strong information access legislation. In addition, the group was asked to ‘find ways to test the new system in relation to government openness and freedom of information generally, given its importance to effective advocacy.’ 8
These three organisations formed the core of an Open Democracy Campaign Group which ultimately grew to include the Parliamentary Office of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the Legal
Resources Centre, the National Association of Democratic Lawyers, the Public Policy Liaison Office of the South
African Council of Churches, the Parliamentary Liaison Office of the Southern African Catholic Bishops'
Conference, the South African NGO Coalition, and the Environmental Justice Networking Forum. The
Campaign Group also benefited from the regular participation of the parliamentary monitor of the South African
Human Rights Commission, one of a handful of constitutionally enshrined bodies responsible for promoting democracy.
Executive concerns narrow the legislation’s scope
The reaction to the early drafts of the bill of one minister, Kader Asmal, probably mirrored that of most of his colleagues in the Cabinet. Asmal spoke with particular authority on matters of transparency and accountability given his position as Chair of the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee on Ethics, and his own history as Professor of Human Rights Law at Trinity College, Dublin. According to Cabinet sources, during the Cabinet's first review of the draft bill, Asmal argued for the blanket exemption of Cabinet records and warned of the dangers of unrestricted access to information. He articulated his position in a more public setting a year later:
On the one hand, people must not feel powerless at the hands of those who temporarily or permanently control their destinies. On the other, the duly elected democratic government must not be rendered powerless in carrying out its mandate. Lord Acton, as we all know, said that power corrupts. It is necessary to adapt Acton and to point out that powerlessness is equally corrupting, for individuals and for the state. The former leads to individual frustration and helplessness. The latter causes governmental drift leading to chaos – with the state unable to perform the functions expected of it 9 .
It must be remembered that these words were delivered at a crucial juncture in the history of the new government. Having delivered a peaceful transition and an internationally-admired constitution, the government
8 [Open Democracy Campaign Group], ‘The Open Democracy Bill: A Critical Review,’ December 1997, p.8.
9 Asmal, K. “A View from Within”, in Administrative Justice in Southern Africa. Corder H. & Maluwa T. (eds). University of Cape
Town. 1997.

58 was now struggling to reform an inherited public service that was in places obstructing its efforts to transform
South Africa's economy and society. There was growing frustration with the apparent inability to implement good policy. Issues such as access to information were increasingly seen as ‘unnecessary luxuries’ or, worse, as further impediments to rapid progress. Ministers such as Asmal were especially mindful of such considerations. They would have been familiar with the Canadian experience, for example, where there is an ongoing debate about the way in which its bill of rights has been hijacked by conservative forces to constrain progressive law and policy.
As a consequence, each government department that reviewed the bill contributed to a growing series of changes.
The bill was diluted in very obvious fashion – the removal of the whole chapter dealing with open meetings, the blanket exclusion of all Cabinet records, the removal of a ‘necessity of harm’ over-ride clause, the excision of provisions creating an Open Democracy Commission and an Information Court – and in more subtle ways, such as the tightening of exemptions concerning third party confidentiality and commercial activity.
The acute irony of this process was that, in essence, it went underground. It became harder and harder to elicit information about both the process of revision and the specific content changes made by the Executive.
Developing the Campaign; Building Trust within the Legislature
Once the bill was finally tabled in parliament, after years of slow progress, there was suddenly a great urgency to meet the constitutional deadline of 4 February 2000. As a Campaign Group, the information and knowledge we had accumulated served us well in our lobbying; under pressure, the committee welcomed our expertise and came to see it as a resource. We also had to build trust, however. The former chairperson of the Justice Committee is a prominent advocate and a formidable parliamentarian. He is not easily persuaded and does not suffer fools gladly.
If we failed to win his respect, our efforts would have come to naught.
Hence, $we were careful to find a balance in our submissions between the “ideal” (as we saw it) and the “realistic”
(as they were likely to see it). To pitch a submission too far in one direction would be to risk losing respect for being ‘unrealistic’ (and therefore unreasonable); to lean too far in the other direction would be to concede too much ground. In preparing submissions we tried also to be as ‘professional’ as possible, in terms of presentation and style, aiming to make the submissions clear and accessible. In this, we had to guard against the danger that our combined knowledge would overflow into over-long submissions. We decided to keep submissions short and offer longer, more detailed versions to those MPs that wanted them.
It was a hard rule to keep; where we breached it, we would often prepare a short two or three page document summarising our main points, with headlines and key ‘sound bites’. The reality is that most MPs face a losing battle against a paper mountain. Advocacy groups add to the mountain at their peril. Short, sharp, concise submissions are a relief to most MPs. If they want more detail then they will ask for it – during the presentation, in questions or afterward.

59
One particular lesson we learnt the hard way was (to borrow the language of the 1992 Clinton US Presidential
Campaign) the need for ‘instant rebuttal’. During the committee hearings, a number of public officials gave evidence. One witness was the then Director-General of Land Affairs, Geoff Budlender, a man with an impeccable human rights reputation and credibility. He told the committee that he feared that the version of the bill then under consideration would paralyse his department and make it impossible for them to do their work. He did so on the mistaken basis that requests for information could constitute, in effect, requests for 'research to be done'. In other words, Budlender interpreted the bill to grant a right not only to access records but also to compel departments to construct or compile records. The effect of Budlender's evidence was profound, less in relation to the specifics of how the bill defined a record – it was already clear that it did not extend as far as Budlender's interpretation – but more in intensifying committee concerns about the bill’s capacity to impede ‘delivery’ by government.
Our response should have been immediate: a short, clear letter to the chair of the committee, copied to the committee members politely pointing out the error of the interpretation. This could have been supported, perhaps, by a gentle rebuke in the media.
Later, it was difficult to dispel the perception that the bill had the potential to paralyze government. When similar incidents occurred we learned to respond more quickly – hence the importance of having members of the campaign group present to monitor proceedings.
The most important aspect of our strategy was our determination to offer constructive alternatives where we had complaints. There is little that is more irritating to a lawmaker than to be faced by a moaning lobbyist who is unwilling or unprepared to offer a better way of doing things. Hence, when presenting our primary concerns, we not only offered policy options, but also alternative legislative language to achieve our proposal.
Although the South African committee system has come a long way, it is still very short of resources. There are no lawyers to assist the committees, who have to rely on the expertise – and the bona fides – of the executive's lawyers. Hence, the need to help the committee with its work by offering actual drafting. We did this in a number of cases: with the drafting of the whole chapter on the horizontal application, the ‘right to know’ provisions and, in the case of whistle-blowing, the drafting of a whole new bill, once the committee agreed to excise it and totally re-conceptualise the legislative approach.
One or two other further factors helped us to gain the trust of the lawmakers. Firstly, we stuck doggedly to our task and demonstrated that we were there for the long haul. Secondly, our presence at the committee enabled us to build up good personal relations with many of the MPs. Although the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice is a charismatic and influential politician and our relationship with him was, therefore, pivotal, we did not neglect the other members of the committee both in the ruling party and in the main opposition parties. The

60
ANC enjoys a very substantial majority in the South African parliament and so clearly our main task was to persuade the ANC members of the Committee. However, we sought to build strategic relations with one or two members of the opposition. This requires that a different sort of trust be built. It is advisable only to deal with opposition members who understand and respect the fact that it may damage a Campaign to have an opposition party member recite, parrot fashion, your arguments. Fortunately, the South African parliament is an exceptionally open one, where tea is shared at the breaks by MPs, lobbyists and media all together. Such breaks provided us with opportunities to raise points, respond to issues before the committee and promote our views quietly.
Finally, the media can play a pivotal role in any legislative campaign. Not all media coverage of a campaign will be good and it needs to be handled with care. For example, coverage in a newspaper which has lost the respect of the ruling party carries the same health warning associated with clumsy support by an opposition party member. Our comments to the media therefore focused on the issues, rather than the politics and the personalities. While it was hard to get the mainstream media to take up the access to information issue and we had to work hard to think of
'real life' examples to help journalists bring the issue to life, we were fortunate that a small group of very dedicated journalists decided to follow the story the whole way through. Accordingly, we sought out and built good relations with them.
Using the media to support a campaign is as specialist a task as, for example, preparing alternative clauses to the draft law. Division of labour is, once again, a useful thing for a campaign group, we discovered. Fortunately, the diversity of our campaign group gave us one or two individuals who had a good understanding of how media operate, what they need and demand, and how to build a good relationship with a journalist. Over a period of time a mutual dependency can grow. Sometimes the journalist needs an ‘expert’ quote to complete the story; other times the campaigner will want the journalist to cover a particular issue in order for the campaign groups' line to acquire greater credibility, or to put more pressure on lawmakers. If handled carefully, media coverage can complement and enhance the other components of an effective campaign.
Building a Campaign: Fostering a strong coalition
Although the Campaign Group was not as disparate a grouping as ODAF had been, it enjoyed substantial diversity. With representation from labour, churches, human rights groups and the legal community, the coalition brought together prominent organisations from several key sectors of civil society. Participants were exclusively
Cape Town-based (although FXI was present at a couple of the coalition's workshops), but most represented organisations that operate nationwide. Most of the groups involved were engaged in work on multiple issues and therefore saw open and accountable government as a central thread linking many of their concerns. The
Campaign Group's breadth enriched its perspective and enabled it to speak with a great deal of moral authority.

61
This diversity was not free of pitfalls, however. The coalition needed to manage and accommodate the differing priorities, political perspectives, and organisational cultures of its members. Large organisations, such as
COSATU, South Africa's giant labour federation, often required much more time to secure formal endorsement for specific policy proposals than smaller groups. In some instances, certain members felt that they needed to put their own ‘stamp’ on coalition submissions through the inclusion of a particular motivating argument or formulation of a policy proposal.
Fortunately, the Campaign Group had sufficient time to work through any difficulties. While the sluggish pace of the drafting process was a disadvantage insofar as it made room for the erosion of the government's enthusiasm for the bill, it was a boon to the cohesiveness and expertise of the Campaign Group. The coalition met regularly for four years with a fairly stable group of personnel. During that period, some organisational representatives moved on to other positions, but their successors were typically well-briefed and rapidly integrated into the group.
This regular contact helped to dissipate the early doubts that some organisational representatives had about the political motivations of their counterparts from other agencies. Continuity bred familiarity and trust and helped to promote consensus. Over time, we also developed a shared base of information, which contributed to a certain convergence of perspective on the legislation and the key issues arising out of it; as the group became more expert, so its confidence but also its cohesiveness grew.
This is not to say that there were no disagreements among members. To the contrary, there were often protracted and even heated debates both inside and outside of coalition meetings. But the mutual trust and respect which
Campaign Group members developed for one another had two important consequences. First, coalition members were generally willing to overlook petty differences and reserve their passion for more central concerns. Second, conflicts never generated lasting tensions that might otherwise have jeopardised the coalition's survival.
The Campaign Group's diversity had an additional benefit in that it enabled a division of labour. Various members of the group brought different skills, interests and expertise to the coalition. This allowed for specialization, as one or two members focused on particular aspects of the bill: the appeal and enforcement mechanisms, the horizontal application of the right to information held by private bodies, the introduction of a
‘right to know’ approach to handling state records, the exemption clauses, and so on.
This complementarity meant that the Campaign Group became greater than the sum of its parts. It also made the coalition a valuable resource to member organisations with limited staff, time and research capacity. Members recognised that the bill was long, complex and difficult. Individually, they were unlikely to be able to juggle all of the issues raised by the legislation. The Campaign Group offered assurance that all of their organisation's primary concerns would be addressed without having to duplicate the research and analysis undertaken by their colleagues.

62
The value of this approach was particularly evident in the coalition's advocacy strategy. Campaign Group members designed their written and oral submissions to be interlocking, with each witness endorsing the positions advanced by other coalition members, then devoting the bulk of her or his time to elaborating a further theme. We dubbed this tactic the ‘Twelve Days of Christmas’ approach; where time allowed, each individual making a submission would quickly run through the 'headline' points of the previous submissions made by the Campaign
Group members before making her or his own, detailed submission. The purpose of this was to hammer home the key points to the MPs.
On several occasions, the group also prepared joint submissions, with each member contributing a section on her or his area of expertise 10 .13 During the protracted committee deliberations, the group made an effort to ensure that the relevant ‘expert’ was on hand to monitor the discussion of provisions of particular concern to the coalition.
The legislation's stately pace not only allowed time for the coalition to gel, it also provided invaluable opportunities for research. By the end of 1997, the Campaign Group had produced a detailed analysis of the content of the draft Open Democracy Bill, including information on the ways in which central problems had been resolved in other countries. Eventually, seven key issue areas crystalised:
Ensuring that the legislation gave full effect to the 'horizontal' right to access privately-held information 11 ;
10 All joint and individual submissions of Campaign Group members are available electronically on the Parliamentary Monitoring
Group website, www.pmg.org.za.
11
The freedom of information clause included in the final constitution is unique in that it not only guarantees access to information in the possession of the state, but it also provides limited access to information held by “private persons” (whether individuals or organisations) to the extent that such information is required for the protection or exercise of any right. To the best of our knowledge, South Africa is the only country that has attempted to establish such a comprehensive right of access to information. We note however that and the Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression as adopted by the African
Commission on Human and People’s Rights borrows from the South African formulation. The Kenyan draft law is currently unclear on the issue of private sector application of the intended FOI law (see, ANNEXURE A attached to this presentation. The title
Annexure is, Dimba, M. Comments by the Open Democracy Advice Centre On the Kenyan Freedom of Information Bill, 2006 , Cape
Town, South Africa, November 2006, unpublished, but to be available at www.opendemocracy.org.za
)
The Open Democracy Bill, as introduced, failed to address fully the right of access to privately-held information. It required only that individuals be permitted to review and correct personal information (such as contact details, etc.) about themselves recorded in any “personal information bank” from which data could be retrieved using a name or other unique personal identifier. This was a much narrower right than envisaged in the constitutional provision.
The enormous gap between the constitutional and the legislative language was due in part to the fact that the original task team had completed its initial draft before the freedom of information clause was finalised. The interim onstitution made no mention of

63
 Ensuring that the enforcement mechanisms established by the new law would be accessible, inexpensive and speedy;
 Promoting a ‘right-to-know’ approach to government-held information, in order to change government attitudes about the disclosure of state records and to maximise the amount of information released without prior review by government officials;
 Reconceptualising and redrafting in separate legislation provisions intended to protect whistle-blowers;
 Narrowing the scope of the disclosure exemptions
 Contesting the blanket exemption of all cabinet records
 Reinstating an early chapter promoting Open Meetings in the public sector.
Each one of these key issue areas was adopted by one or more members of the group, who then took the lead in co-ordinating the research, the formulation of policy proposals, and the lobbying around the particular topic.
The Campaign Group organised one-day workshops at important junctures, drawing in academics and other professional experts to inform the group's discussion and strategic planning. On two occasions, it also commissioned legal opinions from counsel to support or ventilate various arguments.
Consequently, the Campaign Group developed a collective expertise, which became an asset to its members, to parliamentarians, and to the media. As the legislative debate on the bill progressed, a number of journalists began to look to members of the coalition for comment, analysis and background. On the eve of the first parliamentary committee hearing, Business Day, one of South Africa's most respected daily newspapers, ran a front-page story saying that the Campaign Group was going to alert the Committee to the dangers of failing to flesh out the
'horizontal' part of the constitutional right. The piece not only recited the main issues of concern to the group, but also referred to the Campaign Group as the ‘ten organisation Open Democracy Campaign Group’.
At the meeting the next day, one MP referred to the Campaign Group as ‘the Group of Ten’ and it stuck; from then on, generally that was how the committee referred to us. It gave us a sense of presence and persona, of cohesion and achievement. Campaign Group participants also received positive feedback and encouragement privately-held information. However, no effort was made to capture the intent of the new constitutional clause before the draft bill was published in October 1997 or before a final bill was introduced in July 1998.

from within their own organisations in the wake of these media reports. This enhanced members' commitment to the campaign and gave it further momentum.
64
Members of the Campaign Group were all busy people who had many other areas of work on matters of governance, human rights and academia. They also relied on each other to research areas of concern, and develop positions in relation to those areas. Given the size of the group, and the time available, the decision was made to focus on certain key areas.
This was useful in that it gave clarity and purpose to submissions, and created expertise and confidence in the group. However, a number of more technical issues fell to the wayside. These included, for example, the exemption clauses, and particularly, an exemption relating to records which are part of a deliberative process. This exemption was widely drafted, and became a cause for concern after the Bill was passed. Had we allowed fatally wide drafting to escape our scrutiny? Had the drafters simply ended up, in the press of getting the law out, simply made an error?
We hoped that any interpretation of the clause would narrow the exemption. However this minor omission has been seen by many users of the access to information law as being so wide that – as one academic put it – “that it will potentially subsume the right” 12 . Professor Govender further wrote that, an “absurd situation would arise in terms of which the exception to the right of access to information would completely negate the operation of the right itself.” 13
Key Lessons
Many of the lessons identified here are applicable to any legislative lobbying, while some are of particular relevance to access to information campaigns.
First of all, all legislative lobbying requires expertise and knowledge. This is especially so in the case of access to information legislation, which tends to be complex and intricate. There are, therefore, many advantages in building a coalition of some sort. There is no substitute for convincing, well-researched and reasoned arguments; and, in the case of access to information, there is a huge and growing quantity of comparative research. The South
African committee was especially interested in models from the different Australian States – so the Campaign
Group helped persuade the Australian government to finance a study trip by four members of the parliamentary committee.
12 Govender, K. “An Assessment of Limitation to Information in the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Danger that
Disclosure Will Become the Exception Rather than the Norm” in the Seminar Report, Konrad Adenhauer Stiftung, Johannesburg,
2001
13
Govender, K. Devenish, G. Hulme, D. Administrative Law and Justice in South Africa, Butterworths, Durban.

65
Second, work together – establish a broad coalition of forces, across both disciplines and regions. We benefited from having legal, good governance, religious, labour, environmental, and human and civil rights groups all working together. At the same time it was valuable to have a fairly stable core group.
Third, communicate. This helps to keep the coalition together. Trans-regional communication was especially important for us. Although there was some exchange between the Johannesburg and Cape Town groups, this could have been more extensive and fruitful. Regrettably, we did not have the resources to develop good networks in other important regions like KwaZulu-Natal or the Eastern Cape.
Fourth, share tasks. Consider whether specialisation makes sense; it worked well for us.
Fifth, identify and utilise outside expertise. Sympathetic lawyers can make especially valuable contributions to analysis and debate, provided they are not given undue deference or allowed to hijack the coalition. Lawyers often adopt a cautious, even conservative approach to legislative issues, and this should be factored into any planning informed by their advice. One way of retaining strategic control of the campaign is to bring lawyers in as consultants on specific issues by commissioning legal opinions.
Sixth, cultivate contacts in government. These can be important for getting documents or other intelligence on the government's plans. For us in South Africa – where we enjoy a relatively strong and independent legislature – cordial ties with parliamentary leaders who recognised the value of civil society input were particularly important for allowing our voice to be heard and getting our proposals before legislators.
Seventh, be prepared to offer solutions, even if they aren't perfect. The Campaign Group provided basic language to fill several gaps in the legislation. This was often adapted – sometimes beyond recognition – by legislators, but it helped to frame the issues and provided legislators with a starting point, thereby reducing resistance to exploring new themes.
Eighth, be prepared for the long haul. The struggle is not over when the legislation is enacted. One needs to monitor and comment on implementation, regulations, and request procedures and systems.
Ninth, identify unique advantages. In addition to our strong constitutional grounding, the political and institutional fluidity of the transitional state created an openness to input, in part because new MPs often had limited access to research and a propensity to take on board civil society proposals. Other countries may not have these specific characteristics, but may have other advantages unique to their situations.
Finally – and perhaps most important – there must be political will. In our case, the political momentum was captured in the country’s constitution, which lent both moral and legal authority to the campaign even if the political will of some individual public officials began to flag.

66
This secrecy and foot-dragging was a cause of increasingly frustration to civil society organisations monitoring the bill's progress. They began to plead desperately for the bill to be tabled in Parliament, due largely to their confidence in the South African parliament's capacity to address the bill in an open and consultative manner.
Eventually, the much-revised draft legislation – known as the Open Democracy Bill 14 – was published for comment in October 1997 before being introduced in Parliament in July 1998.
Responsibility for the passage of the bill lay with the National Assembly's Portfolio Committee on Justice, one of
Parliament's most dynamic committees with a reputation for legislative competence and careful attention to public submissions. The Portfolio Committee eventually took up the bill in March 1999 when it held two days of public hearings. This process was interrupted by South Africa's second democratic general election in June. When the new Parliament reconvened in August, the 4 February 2000 deadline for adoption of the enabling legislation was looming. To expedite the parliamentary process, an ad hoc joint committee of both Houses was created solely to deal with the legislation 15 . This held a second round of public hearings in October 1999, then worked well into the
December-January holiday recess to ready a bill for final passage at the beginning of the new parliamentary session in February 2000.
Implementation challenges as a result of weaknesses and strengths in advocacy.
“I can remember in February 1990 watching Nelson Mandela being released from Pollsmoor Prison down the road from here. I would have been truly amazed if somebody had said to me then that, 12 years from now I will have visited a democratic South Africa eight to ten times, that I will be at my second annual meeting of the Open Democracy Advice Centre and that a racial dictatorship that was a disgrace around the world and was an international pariah would have become, in my opinion, the gold standard of
14
Although the Open Democracy Bill was primarily intended to give effect to section 32(1) of the constitution, it had been conceived from the outset as a broader bill. Section 195 of the constitution sets out a number of basic principles and values that are meant to govern public administration. These include the encouragement of public participation in policy-making, the accountability of public administration, and the promotion of transparency through the provision of ‘timely, accessible and accurate information’. National legislation was also required to ‘ensure the promotion’ of these values. The Open Democracy Bill initially sought also to respond to this mandate.
Advocate Justine White, who was involved in early efforts to develop a Freedom of Information Act, has written that the original draft of the Open Democracy Bill ‘performed the work of four separate pieces of legislation, namely, a Freedom of Information
Act, a Privacy Act, and Open Meetings Act and a Whistleblower Protection Act.’ [Justine White, ‘Open Democracy: Has the
Window of Opportunity Closed?’ South African Journal on Human Rights 14 (1998), 69.] By the time the bill was approved by
Parliament, it had been stripped of these other components and renamed accordingly: the Promotion of Access to Information
Act.
15 The Ad Hoc Committee on the Open Democracy Bill included most of the members of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and was co-chaired by the Portfolio Committee Chair, Advocate Johnny de Lange, and the chair of the NCOP Select Committee on
Security and Justice, J. Mahlangu.

constitutional development in terms of it’s constitutional reforms, it’s bill of rights, it’s access to information act, it’s protection to whistle blowers and the whole elaboration of rights that has taken place the last few years in this country.”
67
- Andrew Puddephatt 16
Speaking at the Second Open Democracy Review conference, Puddephatt warned South Africa against allowing herself to falter on the rock of implementation. Some developments in the access to information regime in South
Africa created anxiety about the state of compliance with and implementation of the law. Since the South African
FOI law came into force in 2001, the Open Democracy Advice Centre has been tracking its implementation and usage. The picture is far from rosy with a number of institutions failing to respond to requests for information.
On average only 30% requests for information are responded to completely 17 .
There is also a problem with lack of awareness of the legislation by officials as well as the public which leads to lack of consistency in the implementation of the law 18 . Even more challenging to effective implementation of the
FOI law is the lack of an oversight body with adjudicatory functions on the legislation, but more about this later.
Our experience with the FOI law in South Africa shows that we must be cautious of coming to conclusions about access to information in South Africa based merely on a highly regarded piece of legislation and, more broadly, this experience suggest that countries that have not yet adopted freedom of information legislation need to realise that just passing a law in itself does not promote access to information. More efforts must be put towards making the law work.
16
Puddephatt (former Director of Article 19) is one of ODAC’s Senior International Associates. This is extracted from his opening address at the 2nd Annual Open Democracy Review Conference held in Cape Town, South Africa on 10 –12 October 2002
17
See, The Challenge of Implementation: The state of Access to Information in South Africa, Open Democracy Advice Centre
(ODAC), 2003, http://www.opendemocracy.org.za/documents/results_SA_OSJI_study.doc
And
Transparency & Silence: A Survey of Access to Information Laws & Practices in 14 Countries , Open Society Justice Initiative, New
York, 2006
18 Meyer, V, Tilley, A. “Access to Information Law and the Challenge of Effective Implementation: The
South African Case” in The Right to Know, The Right to Live: Access to Information and Socio-
Economic Justice by Richard Calland & Alison Tilley (eds.). Open Democracy Advice Centre, Cape
Town, 2002

The South African FOI law mandates the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) – a constitutional body - is tasked with:
68
 making a copy of a guide on how to use the Act available to the public;
 developing and conducting educational programmes to advance the understanding of PAIA by the public, in particular to teach disadvantaged communities about PAIA and how to use it and how to exercise their rights in terms thereof;
 encouraging public and private bodies to participate in these programmes, and undertake their own educational programmes on the understanding of PAIA;
 training information officers and deputy information officers of public bodies;
 making recommendations to public and private bodies that they change the manner in which they administer PAIA, as the Commission considers advisable;
 consulting with and receiving reports from public and private bodies on the problems they have encountered in complying with PAIA;
 obtaining advice from and to consulting with, or receiving and considering proposals or recommendations from any public or private body, official of such a body or member of the public in connection with the
Commission’s functions in terms of PAIA;
 receiving reports from public bodies regarding the implementation of PAIA;
 compiling and submitting a report to Parliament annually on the enjoyment of the right of access to information in the Republic and the implementation of PAIA in general;
 assisting any person wishing to exercise the right contemplated in PAIA.
We believe that these obligations of the SAHRC are appropriate and, despite some slow progress in the beginning, over the last couple of years the SAHRC has done a lot to meet its educational and promotional obligations in terms of the Act and we are encouraged by their many efforts at making the law works as it should.
These efforts have included the establishment of a forum of Information Officers, conducting numerous training workshops throughout the country, distributing educational materials on the Act and running the Annual
Openness and Responsiveness Awards (ak.a. Golden Key Award) to encourage best practice in the implementation and usage of the law.

69
Presented by Sandy Coliver; Open Society Justice
Initiative i. Introduction
Getting a freedom of information (FOI) law does make a difference, even though a law by itself is not enough. In addition, it requires creating public awareness, needing to file requests and also train employees.
The Freedom to Information Laws are usually passed when there are major changes of governments e.g. Mexico, when Vicente Fox became President in 2000 and in South Africa after the end of apartheid.
An opportunity for passing this Law is when major corruption is exposed like in the United States where the FOI law was substantially strengthened in 1974 following Watergate and Tanzania, seems primed to pass law because of major corruption scandal which means that sometimes leaders truly are interested in passing an FOI law, as part of their legacy
II. Strategic Litigation
A.
FOI activists can bring cases under the Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights, and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (FOE) in Africa.
FOI is constitutionally protected in at least 51 countries around the world; at least 45 constitutions contain express protections and in the other 6 countries, the courts have interpreted the const to guarantee FOI.
 Of countries that expressly guarantee FOI in their constitutions, five are in Africa: Ghana, South
Africa, Uganda, Mozambique and Malawi.
 Advocates may argue that the Constitution (even if it only contains a general guarantee of FOE) should be interpreted in light of and to be consistent with the Declaration of Principles
B.
African Charter and Declaration of Principles
African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights, Article 9
1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information. 2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.
Declaration of Princs on FOE in Africa
Section IV(2) reads:

“The right to information shall be guaranteed by law in accordance with the following principles:
70
 everyone has the right to access information held by public bodies;
 everyone has the right to access information held by private bodies which is necessary for the exercise or protection of any right;
 any refusal to disclose information shall be subject to appeal to an independent body and/or the courts;
 public bodies shall be required, even in the absence of a request, actively to publish important information of significant public interest;
 no one shall be subject to any sanction for releasing in good faith information on wrongdoing, or that which would disclose a serious threat to health, safety or the environment save where the imposition of sanctions serves a legitimate interest and is necessary in a democratic society; and
 Secrecy laws shall be amended as necessary to comply with freedom of information principles.”
C. UN Protections
The UN Int’l Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR), Art 19 guarantees the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Most UN bodies have understood this to guarantee the right to seek, receive & impart information free of government interference, but not to create a right to information held by the government or private boides. The strongest statements of the UN on FOI have been made by the UN
Rapporteur on FOE, Ambeyi Ligabo (Kenyan). In 2004, this rapporteur joined with three other rapporteurs – of the Inter-American system, the African system, and the OSCE – to endorse the right to information in these terms:
“The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right which should be given effect at the national level through comprehensive legislation (for example Freedom of Information Acts) based on the principle of maximum disclosure, establishing a presumption that all information is accessible subject only to a narrow system of exceptions.
 Public authorities should be required to publish pro-actively, even in the absence of a request, a range of information of public interest. Systems should be put in place to increase, over time, the amount of information subject to such routine disclosure.
 Access to information is a citizens’ right. As a result, the procedures for accessing information should be simple, rapid and free or low-cost.
 The right of access should be subject to a narrow, carefully tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests, including privacy. Exceptions should apply only where there is a

71 risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. The burden should be on the public authority seeking to deny access to show that the information falls within the scope of the system of exceptions.
 Public authorities should be required to meet minimum record management standards. Systems should be put in place to promote higher standards over time.
 The access to information law should, to the extent of any inconsistency, prevail over other legislation.
 Those requesting information should have the possibility to appeal any refusals to disclose to an independent body with full powers to investigate and resolve such complaints.
 National authorities should take active steps to address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries within the public sector. This should include provision for sanctions for those who willfully obstruct access to information. Steps should also be taken to promote broad public awareness of the access to information law.
 Steps should be taken, including through the allocation of necessary resources and attention, to ensure effective implementation of access to information legislation.”
While the above statements are strong and significant, the Special Rapporteur on FOE is an independent expert and his views do not have any juridical force. In contrast, the views of the UN Human Rights Committee, comprised of representatives of 23 member states, are considered to have juridical weight especially in individual complaints under the First Optional Protocol, concerning which the HRC sits as an adjudicative body. The
HRC’s General Comments are considered authorative interpretations of the ICCPR. The Justice Initiative is working with members of the HRC to try to persuade them to develop a general comment on Article 19, including to endorse- and thereby give legal force – to the statements of the UN rapporteur (and also to address disproportionate penalties for defamation and similar offences).
The Justice Initiative is also looking for cases to bring to the HRC. Seven countries represented here are parties to the Optional Protocol: Cameroon, Ghana, Madagascar, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia.
Of course, all of these countries are also parties to the African Charter; it might be interesting to identify a few cases to bring to the African Commission or Court on Human Rights, a few to the ECOWAS Court and the East
African Court of Justice, and also a few to the UN HRC.
C.
Inter-American Case Law is the strongest in the world
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the only internationl or regional court to rule that the right to information is a fundamental human right.

Case of Claude Reyes v. Chile, Inter-American Court of Human Rights @ http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.doc
72
Facts:
 A subsidiary of a US company named Trillium bought a huge area of native timber land in Tierra del
Fuego, submitted a brief environmental impact report in 1995 and started logging in 1996.
Environmental groups raised concerns re the area’s fragile ecosystems and T’s poor recordof sustainable logging in the USA and elsewhere.
 May 1998 – An environmental NGO named Terram Foundation, its President Claude Reyes and a
Member of Congress filed request for info collected by the Chilean Foreign Investment Committee on
Trillium’s track record; its compliance with its obligations under Chilean foreign investment laws; and info collected by 3 rd parties.
 July 2 and 3, sent follow-up letters, filed successsive const’l appeals, all were dismissed,inc by the S.Ct on July 31, 1998
 Dec 17, group of enviro NGOs and MPs filed petn w. the Inter-Am Commission
 March 2005 – the Inter-American Commission decided the case, held that the American Convention on Human Rights gives rise to a right of access to information
 in July 2005, after the government failed to implement, the Commission referred the case to the Court
 Sept 2006 – Inter-American Court decided the case
Holding –
 Art 13 of the Amer Conv on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to seek and receive info, protects the right of all individuals to request access to state held info, with the exceptions permitted by the Convention:
 Information shd be provided without the need to prove direct interest.
 State’s obligation is a fund’l element of a demo society.
 In a demo society, essential that the state authorities are governd by the principle of maximum disclosure, presumption that all info is accessible
 Govt must show that (a) disclosure could cause prejudice to a legitimate interest, and (b) any prejudice to the interest is greater than the public interest
 Govt is obliged to train its employees.
D.
Right of Access to Info in Europe

73
 39 of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe have an ATI law. Spain and Russia are the only countries with populations over 1 million that do not have an ATI law.
 ATI is not considered a fundamental right, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled that there is no right under Article 10 (freedom of expression and information) to access info held by the government; the Court has recognized under the right to privacy and family life to receive info from the government about oneself.
 The Council of Europe is currently in the process of drafing a treaty, which will be the first
Convention to recognize a general right of the public to information, called the European Convention on Access to Official Documents. However, the right is not considered a human right but rather is seen more as an administrative right, a kind of democratic instrument (on par with e.g. mechanisms to prevent corruption).
E.
Right of Access to Info in Asia
Only seven countries/territories in Asia have an ATI law: Hong Kong, India, Japan, Nepal, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. China adopted Open Government Information Regulations in 2007 which will enter into force in
May 2009 and will apply to all agencies of government at all levels. As regulations, their status is just below the status of law, and are enforceable by the courts. A top Communist Party official stated when announcing the
Regulations that the Government is committed to operationalizing and applying the OGI Regs so as to promote transparency, accountability and citizen supervision of government. Indonesia similarly adopted an OGI law in
April 2008 which will enter into force in 2010. Pakistan has an weak ATI ordinance.
III. Successful RTI cases that have established important precedents in countries around the world
A. Cases which have held that the national Constitution, even though not guaranteeing RTI directly, nonetheless gives rise to an enforceable implicit right to information
Chile: Casas Cordero Case
 The case arose when a Chilean company filed a request for information from Chile’s Customs
Department regarding alleged irregularities in setting customs tariffs for a foreign competitor. The government denied the request on the ground that a statutory provision granted officials broad discretion to withhold information in the name of private interests.

74
 Our Chilean partner Pro-Acceso argued that information re private companies held by the state should be disclosed, unless such disclosure would clearly harm legitimate commercial interests. The
Constitutional Tribunal agreed, declaring for the first time that the right of access to government information, even though not explicitly recognized by the Chilean Constitution, was protected by the constitution as an integral part of the broader right to freedom of expression and the constitutional principle of a democratic republic.
 In the words of the tribunal, the right of access is “an essential mechanism for [ensuring] the full effectiveness of the democratic regime” which promotes “the adequate exercise and protection of [other] fundamental rights.”
 The tribunal held that any restrictions on the right of access must be defined and construed narrowly.
19
India. The Constitution of India does not contain an explicit reference to the right to information. It is an implied fundamental right. The Constitution guarantees every citizen six freedoms under Article 19(1), including the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). Since the enforcement of the
Constitution in 1950, the scope of the right to freedom of speech and expression has been expanded through judicial interpretation. In addition to this, the Supreme Court of India has in several decisions declared that the citizens’ right to know precedes the right to freedom of speech and expression and is a vital pre-condition for the enjoyment of that freedom. The apex court has held that transparency in government affairs and its decision making processes is a sine qua non of a truly functional democracy. In another judgement the apex court has held that the citizen’s right to know forms an integral part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution (SP Gupta V. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149).
The Supreme Court has established in several decisions that the citizen’s right to know arises from two fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution – the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to life.
20 Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right and lists the grounds – the sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
19 Decision in Spanish and English translation are on file with the Justice Initiative.
20 The relevant cases of the Supreme Court are Bennett Coleman & Co. v Union of India , AIR 1973 SC 783, dissenting judgment of Justice KK Matthew in particular; State of UP v Raj Narain , AIR 1975 SC 865; Reliance Petrochemicals
Ltd v Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt Ltd , AIR 1989 SC 190; Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay) Pvt Ltd v India (1985) 1 SCC 641; Secretary, Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. Of India, And
Others, V. Cricket Association Of Bengal And Others, 1995(002) SCC 0161 SC People’s Union For Civil Liberties
(PUCL) And Another, V. Union Of India, 2003(001) SCW 2353 SC.

75 decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence – on which such limitations may be imposed. The exemptions clause of the Right to Information Act of 2005 contains all these grounds for withholding access to information and adds a few additional grounds.
Mexico. Since 1977, the Constitution has established an obligation on the federal state to guarantee access to information.
21 The Supreme Court has established that this provision is closely linked to the right to truth, understood as a right of the public to be provided truthful information to enhance its participation in the decision-making process. In this sense, the Supreme Court has established that authorities that provide manipulated or incomplete information, or information that is biased towards particular interests, and that limits informed participation in public matters, violate constitutional rights.
22 The Constitution also provides for a right of petition 23 .
Uruguay. The Constitution is silent concerning the right of access to information.
24 It enshrines, however, a right of petition.
25 The Constitution also includes an open-ended provision establishing that the catalogue of rights, duties and guarantees included in the Constitution shall not be interpreted as excluding any other right or guarantee inherent to a republican form of government.
26 There is no law ensuring access to information in general. However, the principle of publicity is recognized by law.
27
In a decision of 2002, a Court of Appeals ordered the executive branch to release information related to an arrest request by Argentina concerning two former members of the military and an ex-policeman for alleged human rights abuses. The information included reports of the Public Prosecutor and the Attorney General. The Court
21 Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, Art.6. For text see: http://constitucion.gob.mx/index.php?art_id=20 This Article was included by a reform published the 6 December, 1977.
See: Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta , Novena Época, Pleno, XI abril de 2000, p.72, tesis:
P.XLV/2000, IUS 191981.
22 Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta, Novena Época, Pleno III, June 1996, tesis: P. LXXXIX/96; IUS:
200111.
23 Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, Art.8. For text see: http://constitucion.gob.mx/index.php?art_id=20 .
24 Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1967 with reforms of 2004), Art. 29. For text see: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Uruguay/uruguay04.html
.
25 Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1967 with reforms of 2004), Art. 30, see: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Uruguay/uruguay04.html
.
26 Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (1967 with reforms of 2004), Art. 72. For text see: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Uruguay/uruguay04.html
.
27 This information was gathered by Martin Prats, from the Instituto de Estudos Legales y Sociales del Uruguay
(IELSUR).

76 ruled that exceptions to the principle of access to information shall be clearly stated, noting the importance of international human rights provisions, freedom of information as a means to build public opinion, and the essential character of public opinion in a democratic society.
28
Several countries have special procedures that enable constitutional rights – including the right to information - to be directly enforceable. In several Latin American countries, the constitutional right to information may be enforced via a habeas data petition (e.g., Honduras, Panama and Peru).
Panama. The Constitution of Panama was amended in 2004 to provide for the right to access information held by the state or by private companies involved in work of a public nature. The Constitutional provisions also provide judicial remedies to ensure the exercise of the right of access to information, along with habeas data procedures.
29 In other words, a requester may file a petition for habeas data to challenge a denial of public information of any kind as well as a denial of access to personal information held in public files. The petition may be filed with any of the High Courts which have jurisdiction to hear amparo petitions (constitutional claims to ensure respect for fundamental rights), or by the Supreme Court itself, depending on the agency that denied access to the information in the first place.
30
Peru. Upon exhaustion of all administrative avenues of relief, 31 an individual may choose to file a petition for habeas data 32 with the Peruvian courts in order to seek redress against any “action or omission by an administrative official that violates or threatens [the right of access to information as defined in] the
Constitution.” 33 Individuals may use this process to seek access to information “generated, produced, processed, or possessed” 34 by any administrative entity, including court rulings and opinions. Habeas data petitions may be
28 A. Alsina c. Estado, 4 March 2002, para XVIII to XX
29 Constitución Política de la República de Panamá, Arts. 42 and 44.
30 Ley No.6 que dicta normas para la transparencia en la gestión pública, Chapter V.
31 The Constitutional Tribunal has applied Art. 27 and 28 of Law No. 23506 (Ley de Habeas Corpus y Amparo) as a supplemental statute for interpreting the exhaustion of all administrative remedies for a petition of Habeas Data. For text of statute see: http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/inst/MGP/JCI/02-peru-leyhabeascorpusyamparo.htm
. See also the Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional, Exp. No. 400-96-HD/TC , June 11, 1998. For text of caselaw see: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/1998/00400-1996-HD.html
.
32 In accordance with Art. 200 of the Peruvian Constitution, Title IV of Law 28237 (Código Procesal Constitucional) published in “El Peruano” on May 31, 2004, provides for the constitutional remedy known as the petition of Habeas
Data. For text of statute see: http://www.cajpe.org.pe/rij/bases/legisla/PERU/CPC.PDF
.
33 Constitución Política del Perú 1993, http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Peru/per93reforms05.html#titIcapI ..
Art. 200, see:
34 Title IV of Law 28237 (Código Procesal Constitucional) published May 31, 2004, petition of Habeas Data, http://www.cajpe.org.pe/rij/bases/legisla/PERU/CPC.PDF
, at Art. 61. The Constitutional Tribunal has held that Article
61 of Law 28237 requires that the administrative entity physically possess the requested information. Resolución del
Tribunal Constitucional, Exp. No. 3140-2006-HD/TC.For text see: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2007/03140-

77 denied for a variety of reasons including meeting one of the requirements for dismissal found in Articles 5 or
62 of the Constitutional Procedure Code.
35 Petitions may also be denied if the Constitution or Congress has expressly declared the requested information to be confidential.
36
B. Asset Declarations
Asset declarations are powerful tools for exposing corruption.
The World Bank requires recipients of certain kind of assists to have some form of asset declaration requirements. Of 148 countries eligible for WB support, 104 now require top officials to declare assets to an
AC body or other govt entity, of which at least 33 require that the forms be published or made available to the public.
-
In Africa, only Liberia and South Africa require asset declarations to be made public – by law.
8 of the countries represented at this meeting require top officials to file asset declarations but do not require that they be made available to the public: Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria,
Madagascar.
Declarations of assets made by public officials have been key to many high-profile investigations. Of course, even when a law requires officials to disclose fully what they own when they assume and leave office, many do not comply strictly with the law.
In Indonesia, the Commission to Audit the Wealth of State Officials or KPKN was created in 2001 to monitor the assets of officials based on their official declarations: 59 percent of officials in the executive branch, 87 percent of legislators, and 84 percent in the judiciary declared their assets. In 2002, a new anti-corruption law was passed by the Indonesian Parliament, and the KPKN was replaced by the Corruption Eradication Commission
(KPK). The asset disclosures are available, after submission of a written request, to any member of the public.
2006-HD%20Resolucion.html
. This same court has also held that as a general rule, there is no barrier of possession in the case of the President of the Republic, and that anyone can file a petition of Habeas Data in these types of cases.
Sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional, Exp. No. 0959-2004-HD/TC. For text see: http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2005/00959-2004-HD.html
.
35 Id. at Arts 5 and 62 (with section 8 of Art. 5 being modified by Law 28642, published Dec. 8, 2006).
36 Law No. 27806 (Texto Único Ordenado de la Ley No. 27806, Ley de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información
Publica, Decreto Supremo No. 043-2003-PCM)., July 13, 2002. For text see: http://www.pcm.gob.pe/Transparencia/Ley_de_Transparencia_y_Acceso_a_la_InformacionPublica.pdf
. Article 19 of
Law 27806 provides for the provision of redacted documents.

The KPK has files on more than 110,000 state officials, and is in the process of posting them on its website, http://www.kpk.go.id
.
78
Asset declarations are useful for tracking an official's wealth over time as well as revealing actual or potential conflicts of interest. Asset declarations can also be mined for bits of information (an official's home address, for example; the companies he has shares in; and the names of his children) that may be useful when pursuing the investigation further.
Journalists in the Philippines were able to use asset declarations to expose massive corruption of President
Estrada, resulting in a “People Power II” movement which unseated him in 2000. Thai journalists similarly exposed the concealment of assets by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, for which he was convicted.
37
Several courts around the world have established useful precedents regarding the kinds of assets that must be declared.
 --For instance, in 2007, the Lima-based Press and Society Institute (IPYS) challenged the Ministry of
Transportation's refusal to provide full access to the assets declarations of the minister and his deputy.
In particular, the Ministry refused to disclose information about the income and assets of the officials’ spouses and dependent children.
 IPYS has repeatedly argued that Peru's Constitution and the 2001 asset declaration law provide for full disclosure of the declarations. However, a June 2001 executive decree limits public disclosure to a brief summary of the declarations, rendering confidential the detailed breakdown of the data provided by the officials.
 The Justice Initiative filed a friend-of –the-court brief with Peru's Constitutional Court which provides an overview of how countries in Latin America and around the world have reconciled the publication of assets declarations with privacy concerns and other competing interests. The brief argues that assets declarations are an important tool of anti-corruption policies adopted by many democratic countries, enhancing accountability and the public's trust in government. Publication of the detailed declarations is essential to ensuring they are credible and effective. The brief is available, in English or Spanish, here .
37 The Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia , by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
2004.

79
 In February 2006, a different section of the Constitutional Tribunal ruled, in a brief opinion, that withholding the detailed assets declarations was consistent with the protection of the right to privacy.
In August 2007, however, a lower Lima court, in another case brought by IPYS, refused to apply the
2001 decree, holding that publication of the detailed declarations is a reasonable and justified restriction of the officials' privacy. The case pending before the Constitutional Tribunal is expected to help settle the divergent case law.
C. Good Cases on Government Contracts
The laws of several countries contain an explicit public interest override concerning confidential commercial information, compelling the disclosure of information in the public interest. The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights and several national courts have also ruled that information must be disclosed when to do so serves a public interest, even if commercial privacy interests could be harmed.
The argument for disclosure becomes more compelling where the third-party business information relates to government contracts, commercial interests or activities of a government entity, or commercial activities on public land. There is a strong, counter-balancing public interest in holding the government publicly accountable for these expenditures and activities.
Even the potential for some private harm from disclosure of confidential business information should yield to the broader interests of the public in gaining access where that public interest can be shown to outweigh the asserted private harm. Often the argument against disclosure turns on a fear that public access to the information could cause embarrassment to the business implicated. But this is not a fear to which access to information regimes should accord much weight. After all, business embarrassment would also be caused by revelations of waste, fraud, corruption, or other illegality – on the part of the business or the government entity.
Mexico. In Juan Gabriel Gutierrez Orozco v. Mexican Petroleum, the Mexican Federal Access to Information Institute
(“IFAI”) ordered disclosure of (1) the names and addresses of liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) distributors that had purchased LPG from Pemex, a state company in charge of all exploitation and first sale of such products, and
(2) Pemex’s sales volumes. The Mexican Access Law allows submitters of confidential information to designate the information as such and states that the government may disclose the confidential information “only with the express consent of the individual to whom that confidential information belongs.” 38 However, the confidential information may be withheld on these grounds only if it falls within one of the statutory exemptions. With
38 Mexican Access Law, art. 19.

80 respect to names and addresses of LPG distributors, because LPG distribution was licensed by the federal government, which was required to make public its list of licensees under the Access Law, the IFAI determined that the information should be disclosed. With respect to sales volumes, the IFAI recognized that specific sales information “might be of utility” to the distributors’ competitors and that Pemex had taken steps to maintain confidentiality of the information. But because petroleum is national patrimony under the Mexican Constitution and because Pemex’s aggregate sales data are indicative of its use of public resources, the IFAI concluded that disclosure of such aggregate data “would contribute to the objectives of the Access Law to enhance the transparency and accountability of public administration.” 39
Chile: Constitutional Court ordered the disclosure of info that could show failure to pay import duties. Casas
Cordero v. Chile.
Albania – District court of Tirana ordered disclosure of garbage disposal contracts which showed evidence of bribery.
Ireland – a government agency was required to disclose the (very high)hourly rates it paid its lawyers for defending an action.
The laws of several countries provide, or have been interpreted to provide that the protection of public health, safety, and the environment or the need to avert imminent harm to persons may outweigh business interests in confidentiality.
Japan: a High Court required disclosure of the structural safety of a building in which biotec experiments were conducted. The court noted the especially high interest in info relevant to public health, safety or the environment.
South Africa. In Trustees For the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v. Registrar: Genetic Resources, 40 the High Court ordered the Registrar of Genetically Modified Crops to release information pertaining to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including certain risk assessment data. The registrar initially refused to disclose the information on the ground that the disclosure of such information would harm the commercial and financial interests of Monsanto and several other companies. The court placed the burden of establishing that a refusal of a request for access is justified on the parties claiming the refusal. Section 36 of the Access to Information Act provides that access to a record may not be refused if it consists of information “about the results of [any]
39 Juan Gabriel Gutierrez Orozco v. Mexican Petroleum , File No. 2717/06 (2006).
40 Trustees For the Time Being of the Biowatch Trust v. Registrar: Genetic Resources , No. 23005/2002 (T.P.D.) (S.
Afr.), http://www.biowatch.org.za/docs/judgement.pdf.

81 investigation” performed by or on behalf of a third party “and its disclosure would reveal a serious public safety or environmental risk.” The court noted the potential dangers to public health and environmental safety that result from GMO experimentation and concluded that disclosure of most of the requested information was in the public interest.
41
***
The Justice Initiative has provided technical support to cases in the following areas:
 Asset declarations, including information about the assets of spouses and dependent children;
 Information provided to a government agency by a private company that the agency or the company claims is confidential;
 Environmental information;
 Information about elections;
 Information about government contracts, including about the procurement process and including for the awarding of natural resource concessions, for privatization of government assets, and foreign direct investment;
 Information held by the judiciary, including submissions by parties to litigation.
The Justice Initiative is also especially interested in several other topics including
 pre-trial detention
 health budget allocation
 serious human rights violations committed in the course of the war on terror
 Foreign direct investment.
Some of the information in this paper was drawn from The Right to Information: Best Law & Practice (Justice
Initiative summer 2008), which will be published on JI’s website this summer, and includes case citations. Please feel free to request a copy or any other FOI information from scoliver@justiceinitiative.org
.
Overcoming litigation challenges in the absence of FOI law
41 Id . at 53-65.

82
 Freedom of Access to Information should find a home. There is got to be a central point where advocacy for FOI is housed. Need for a specific structure for implementation of advocacy to enforce compliance. The body will be responsible to empower the supply side. Government bodies need to be encouraged to make sure that they take records seriously.
 On the CSOs side, there is need for a structure that will get people to use the legislation especially in the
African context for the development of the poor. Link FOI to other people’s concerns like in South
Africa AIDS is a big challenge hence FOI has been embedded in the demand for health services. Consider enforced litigation as a means to enforcing other social economic policies.
 The second strategy is to find champions within the public sector. Other departments, officials had to be identified that have interest in FOI. The Golden Key Award was introduced in the public service in SA and now very popular and change is being realized. Need to establish networks.
 Linking FOI in other national strategies like the PRM process in South Africa. This binds governments about the issues raised during the PRM process. Introduced the National Anti Corruption Forum which protects the whistleblowers.
 On dealing with Government, the Nigerian experience set good example. In Nigeria, the level of interest in passing the Access to Information Law is high especially among the lower and upper houses of representatives which is a good sign. The executive promised to sign the bill into Law once presented to his office which calls for the continued dialogue with those who are against more than those who are for the enactment of the Law.
 It seems like in the advocating for the Freedom of Information Law the French speaking countries have been left out. It is therefore imperative that they are brought on board in advocating for FOI?
 Litigation as a strategy to advocate for the FOI Law has its challenges. A case in point is in Uganda where litigation has not worked like in the case of Butamira Forest in Eastern Uganda where access to courts and applications of the law to privately held information increasingly became difficult.
 It is imperative that in advocating for the FOI Law, lessons are drawn from those countries where the
Law is operationalised. FOI Advocates can borrow a leaf from India on how social mobilization is used in promotion of FOI and other social issues.

 In making the Access to Information Law become useful, its important after the court rulings that the court proceedings are implementation.
83
 Exchange programmes as an initiative of capacity building for FOI Advocates can be adopted as a strategies on the implementation of India in the process of Access to Information. In abide to gain from this; HURINET is in discussions with India to have an internship exchange programme where the FOI
Advocate gets to learn more about processes of implementation on FOI.
 The challenge on litigation is lack of funds to go through the judicial process and sometimes corruption within the judiciary. However, important to note that litigation sets standards and it takes time. If the judgment is good, need not to sit but make sure that implementation is done.
 Use of FM Radio stations is a good strategy to keep the FOI Agenda alive. ICJ-Kenya held a capacity building workshop in Mombasa and worked on the strategy of initiating an FOI strategy.
 Legal clinics need to be utilized where they exist to help to fire the cases that come up. There is need for an NGO movement around litigation as an effort to draw attention to the issues.
The Coalition strategy in advocacy is about building synergies.
Building Synergies

 Synergy has its origins in theology & was then used to describe the cooperation between human effort & divine will.
84
 Since the 1990s, synergy has become a common buzzword, especially in the business world.
Synergy is variously described as:
‘Two or more discrete influences or agents acting in common to create an effect which is greater than the sum of the effects each is able to create independently’. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
‘… A mutually advantageous conjunction of distinct elements.’ synergy2.sourceforge.net
‘… Behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately’.
- Buckminster Fuller’s book, ‘Synergetic”
‘The combined effect of two or more things, processes, etc that exceeds the sum of their individual effects: the
synergy achieved by merging the two companies.’ Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
 Therefore, the most important reason for creating a coalition of civil society organizations is to increase their power & ability to achieve their objectives.
 This increased power & capacity arises from the fact that a civil society coalition has a number of advantages, if it is functioning properly & there is cooperation among members.
The advantages of coalition building include:
 Providing a forum for the joint consideration of problems
 Combining financial, material & human resources of each member of the coalition
 Reducing competition for access to resources among or between coalition members
 It is more able to mobilize the interest of other people & groups
 Being able to attract the attention of the media & people in influential positions.
 Strengthening solidarity & unity within the civil society movement.
 Being able to build the image & significance of the civil society sector in the eyes of members of the public & among government officials.

85
 Providing protection for individual members against harassment & repression.
 Providing strength for members as weaker organizations benefit from stronger ones & all organizations can benefit from the individual strengthens of each member.
 Conferring legitimacy on the group as it is seen to represent a wider constituency than any individual member of the coalition.
The Challenge of Coalitions
 Despite its many advantages, working in coalitions also has its challenges.
 The building & running of coalitions is a complex issue.
 It is difficult to strike the right balance between ensuring unity within the coalition & encouraging the diversity which is also its strength.
 Requiring more complicated organization & logistics
 Difficulty is achieving consensus among a large number of individuals or CSOs with disparate organizational mandates & priorities.
 Difficulty in managing peers & directing activities among autonomous organizations.
 Constant possibility of suspicion & rivalry between or among members.
Mitigating the Challenges of Coalitions
 To mitigate the effect of these challenges, it is important for all members to have a clear understanding of why the coalition was formed & what its processes are.
 Members should constantly remind themselves that the coalition is being formed because the power of the coalition lies primarily in the strength in its numbers. The more entities that are involved in advocacy
& lobbying on a public issue, the more powerful the effect they will have. Petty squabbles will result, at best, in an ineffective coalition and, at worst, in a self-destructive one.
The power of coalition through the diversity of its members.
 Various types of organizations have various constituencies or groups of supporters, & therefore various bases for public & political support.

 A coalition is much stronger if it can bring together organizations that are not seen as traditional partners.
86
The power of coalition which enables it to diversify its competencies, expertise, and capabilities.
 Various groups have various expertise, capabilities, talents, etc. which they can harness for a joint project.
 The know-how, contacts & experiences which any member of the coalition has (e.g. in working with the media, organizing campaigns, accessing public authorities, etc.) can benefit the coalition as a whole.
 Ironically, in many coalitions, most of the members are not active in its affairs
 There are examples of such coalitions where tremendous achievements have nonetheless been made in advocacy campaigns
 Success in such cases has depended on a small number of highly motivated & dynamic people who served as catalyst for the larger group.
 However, the creation of effective coalitions among civil society organizations remains one of the most important strategies for conducting advocacy campaigns.
 The challenge, therefore, is to find ways to make them work better & realize their vast potential
Sharing Best Practices in Coalitions
 The civil society movement in Central & Eastern European countries is reputed to have achieved impressive successes & gained social authority owing to their ability to work in coalitions.
 Based on the various experiences of operating coalitions, a number of tried & tested rules for forming & maintaining functional coalitions have been developed.
Coalition Etiquette: The Basic Rules for Building Unity
Each member of the coalition should understand not only the way in which other members make decisions within their own organizations, but also the impact that this has on procedures & the functioning of the coalition.
Members of the coalition should clarify the areas in which they have similar interests – i.e., those in which they want, and are able, to cooperate – along with those upon which they do not agree & in which they have conflicting interests.
Members should accept the diversity & division of tasks.

A coalition cannot expect uniformity from its members in their actions & beliefs, but must respect their diversity & learn to utilize it.
87
 Before causing a commotion, collect & verify information.
 Do not depend upon one source of information – listen to various viewpoints before you make decisions.
 Issues are rarely simple & uncontroversial.
 Learn to politely disagree.
 If you are to work together, you must learn to disagree in a way that allows your further cooperation.
 Strictly divide your role as a member of an organization from that as a member of a coalition.
 It is particularly important to avoid speaking in the name of the coalition (or sounding as if you are doing so), if you, as an individual or an organization, have not been entrusted with this role by the coalition.
 Do not use the media to express your disagreement with the coalition.
 If you disagree with it, resolve this problem within the coalition itself.
 Share the credit & successes.
 If people & organizations work diligently, they should also receive praise.
 It is better to praise people too often than too infrequently.
 Early on, decide upon the method of decision-making within the coalition.
 Each member should be familiar with the decision-making procedure; it should be clear, accepted by everyone, and thoroughly applied.
 Decide upon the method of directing meetings of the coalition’s steering committee (the length of the meeting, regularity, basic rules, the minimum number of participants, etc.).
 Procedural issues of this type may lead to sharp conflicts despite the goodwill of members.
 It is therefore a good idea to prevent them with clear & mutually accepted rules.
 In advance, clarify the areas & level of decision-making freedom for the executive arm of the coalition
(within the steering committee).

 According to decision type, divide them into areas in which the steering committee must decide, and those in which the executive arm may decide.
88
 Agree upon the decision-making process in situations where a sharp conflict arises or persists between members.
 If these are important differences between members, which you are not able to resolve alone, you may use an independent mediator, arbitrator, or panel.
 It is a good idea to agree upon procedure before such problems arise.
 Agree upon the conditions under which it is possible to re-discuss an already-approved decision.
 Effective decision-making is very important for the effective functioning of the coalition, and part of this is a common awareness of when it is appropriate to return to an approved decision & when it is not.
Anticipating & Overcoming Tensions in Coalition Building & Actions
In 2005, the Advocacy and Leadership Center ( http://www.advocacy.org
) developed a brief set of guidelines for managing tensions within coalitions.
They are called “Tips for anticipating and overcoming tensions in coalition building and actions”
Recognize that conflict will occur no matter how good all participants’ intentions are.
Mixed loyalties are unavoidable.
Coalition members owe their primary loyalty to their own organization.
Coalitions have to be accountable to their purpose & mission.
They must sometimes take fast action but must do so without surprising their members.
Balancing unity and diversity is demanding.
You can avoid problems by examining whether potentially troublesome matters will be addressed …
Consider:
 Goal differences.
 Ideological differences.

89
 Different expectations on results of actions or efforts.
 Power differences within the coalition.
 Differences of commitment & intensity to coalition objectives.
 Dealing with differences in financial & in-kind commitments.
 Differences in organizational style among different sized groups.
Observations from members
 The more powerful it is the more that power seems to infiltrate in. How do you deal with that power in the coalition?
 Coalitions spend a lot of time in building capacity of members.
 Within a coalition different members bring in different faces at any given time?

90
The bill of rights and the constitution upheld the right of access to any information held by the state and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
1.
National Treasury
2.
Department of Agriculture
3.
Department of Justice
4.
Department of Defence
5.
Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism
6.
Department of Social Development
7.
Supreme Court of Appeals Mr. Ojo and Mr. Mukelani Dimba at the conference
8.
Johannesburg High Court
9.
National Assembly
10.
The Presidency
11.
Sakhisizwe Municipality
12.
Umhlathuze Municipality
13.
Kanaland Municipality
Mr. Kirunda Kivenjinja the Third Premier and Minister of
Information and National Guidance on the right sitting with Mr.
Tumwine of Hurinet in the middle and Ms. Filippinyi on the left
14.
Nelson Mandela Metro

91
15.
Ekurhuleni Metro of Johannesburg
16.
Eskom
17.
Umgeni Water
City
Interviews with Deputy Information Officers
 Lack of capacity
 Centralised systems of dealing with requests
 Organisational culture
 Confidence in providing access to documents
The Inspector General of Government Ms. Faith
Mwondha listens to Mr. Tumwine Patrick during the closure of the EA and beyond conference on FOI.
What needs to be done?
 Need for Information Officers in each government department. The head of department is the
Information Officer and Deputy Information Officers are designated as IOs. However, during the survey only 10% of government departments had IOs and many do not know that they are IOs because of the law in place which says existing officers in government are made designated IOs.
 Issue of manuals-document that contains all the relevant information about the department. It also contains a list of documents kept by the department. Less than 14% in 2002 had published the lists.
The challenge is the law does not entail an enforcement mechanism i.e. fines and penalties. The law has been amended to contain provisions for penalties for non compliance.
 Resources and training even the Human Rights Commission which has the government mandate. Let
CSOs offer support to government officials by training them on record keeping. This will put pressure on government to act.
 No provision for Information Ombud. In South Africa you have to go to the High Court and this is not possible for the poor. Department of justice amended the law to bring on board the Magistrates
Court to hear cases of FOI. The Human Rights Commission to be reconstituted as an Information
Commission in June 2004.

92
 Difficulty of the majority illiterate people in accessing information. Access to Information is beyond the people who are outside the realms of society. The law tries to address the issue of IO assisting the person who is illiterate but a lot needs to be done.
 There is a challenge of refusals. A study in 2004 indicated that 62% of the requests made in South
Africa, went unanswered. There was no leadership in departments to respond to sensitive requests.
Officials need to rely on legal advice.
 The public is not sensitized on the existence o the law.
 There are no Access to Information rules and regulations.
 There is poor record keeping in most government departments.
 Though some government institutions give information when requested for others delay while others refuse.
 Some government bodies have no Information Officers in place.
 On a happy note however, draft regulations are to be discussed next week and CSOs have been invited to have an input to the final rules and regulations.
 Information Officers to a few Public Institutions have been have been nominated.
Challenges
 There is no political will among the Public and has been made worse by the culture of secrecy.
 Just like in other countries, Indonesia has no Public Information Officers to share information with the public.
 The documentation process and poor infrastructure are in a sorry state and this has not created an enabling environment for access to information.

 The Public is not aware of the law on Access to Information and how to access it.
In abide to make the Law on Access to Information useful to its public;
93
 Civil Society in Indonesia has agreed to create public awareness and also try to influence the change in the culture of secrecy not only in public offices but also among the public.
 The Civil society has also agreed to build and make a website that will be both an educational and informative tool with the aim of informing and creating awareness with the public on the Access to
Information Law.
 They will also build a central system that will lead in the sensitization process of other public bodies in accessing information.
 In advocating for the Access to Information Law, Legal clinics should be used as a litigation strategy.
Using of Law students is cost effective because no legal fees would be required, the Students would only require transport costs.
 Civil Society in Uganda should be vigilant in aiding the Government to draft the rules and regulations on the Access to Information law.
 FOI Advocates should train and create awareness to Journalists (those based in the rural and urban areas) on issues of access to information. The trainings that are aimed at narrowing the gap between journalists in rural areas and those in urban areas should also shape Journalists into writing informative and interesting pieces for their Media houses making Access to Information an agenda. The trainings should be geared to Investigative Journalism.
 Civil Society should work at making the community own the Access to Information Law. The structural concepts relating to FOI though not the concern of the ordinary person should be brought into context of the people and making sure that the people understand it. When the community contextualizes the FOI legislation, they identify themselves with the FOI movement. This can be done by having the Access to
Information Law translated to different local languages.
 FOI Advocates have been called upon to create people’s tribunals for purposes of holding unwilling governments accountable.

94
 FOI Advocates should work at building the capacity of Institutions in effective file management systems with the aim of enhancing access to information like the Internet Bill. The effective file management systems will enable the easy access of information in Public Institutions when required.
 FOI Advocates are called upon to make a home for FOI within the NGO sector
 In an effort to enable the Access to Information Law, different strategies have been adopted by FOI
Advocates among which are;
1.
Encourage Public Institutions have basic information of their institutions on their websites with the aim of reducing crowding at their Institutions when requests are being made for information.
2.
Design user friendly soft wares to enable and enhance access to information.
3.
FOI Advocates should get information that concerns the Public from different Public Institutions and later have it disseminated to the Public through public meetings and community gatherings.
4.
FOI Advocates should encourage the displaying of information on public notice boards for community consumption.

95
resented by Mukelani Dimba (ODAC)
Secrecy has been central to the survival of:
 Bad governments
 Weak Companies, and
 Secrecy allows inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption to thrive
 Lastly, business has been just as guilty as governments in the abuse of human rights e.g. South African mines and sweat shops in South East Asia
Post -structural adjustment era
Public functions and services Privatisation, Corporatisation, Public-Private Partnership-
Private sector
The Freedom of Information: Rajasthan Case Study
Government Ration Dealers Public
Progressive Perspective
Access to information is the cornerstone of:
• transparent,
• participatory and
• accountable governance

If the private sector is to carry out public functions and exercise so much power over the people, they must accept a duty of accountability to the public for their actions.
96
South African Experience
The Constitution upholds the principle of horizontal applicability in its provision that the Bill of Rights binds a natural or juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.
Section 32 of the Bill of Rights in the constitution upheld the right of access to any information held by the state and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
The Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000 (PAIA)
The Act came into force on 19 March 2001
PAIA:
The Act applies to:
Public Bodies (all three levels of government, government departments, official institutions, statutory bodies and, parastatals)
Private Bodies (businesses and other juristic persons)
Structures for Implementation:
-
Identification of Information Officers and designation of Deputy Information officers (In the case of public bodies)
Preparation of Manuals
-
Voluntary disclosure and automatic availability of records
Devising a system for handling and deciding on requests
Establishing a system for internal appeals (In the case of public bodies)
The Judiciary has taken a very narrow interpretation of provisions that relate to access to privately held information while being very progressive in their judgements relating to government-held information.

Access to privately held information remains work-in-progress in this noble experiment of holding accountable
ALL who have a major influence on how other people lead their lives.
97

98
Presenter: Eszeter Filippinyi + group discussion
Government has a duty of working on draft laws, listening to opinions of CSOs, collect and keep information. Once there is a law, regulation of the law drafted and implemented. Training government officials on easy use of manuals, find low cost solution archives.
CSOs have a duty to help in this process and mainly to exercise the right of access and monitor government. It is very important for each CSO to choose their own priorities and to distribute tasks within the coalition. Tasks include: training to government officials making them understand why FOI is important and what are their obligations under the law, to train CS, to monitor, to appeal and litigate, among others.
Preparation of manuals on how to use the law was made in several countries. And even in leading countries on FOI, like Sweden, need to train their public officials continuously. Trainings to other members of CSOs working on health education, environment, women, etc. and make them understand how this law will help them to execute their work.
Invest in working on the relationship between CSOs and the media e.g. the Argentina Golden Prize for investigative journalism
Raising awareness about FOI among the judges, in the form of interviews, meetings, forums.
Cooperating with existing legal clinics and/or work with universities.
Offering technical advice to government is an option.

Assisting in the drafting of internal regulations of the ministries (take care not to do the work instead of them!)
99
Assist in the improvement of the internal information management systems (ex. Justice Initiative’s project in Peru and in Albania). However, avoid doing what government should be doing.
Need for monitoring to identify the real problems and design the way forward. It also helps in identifying good cases.
Litigation. Choose exemplary cases you can strategically take on to create precedents.
Chose good partners in government since there are some good departments/individuals that are supportive of the efforts. The same applies to members of parliaments e.g. in Albania CSOs is working on the amendments that will improve the existing FOI law through supportive MPs.
CSOs need to push commissions/ ombudsman to perform where they exist.
CSOs need to put FOI into context e.g. in Argentina the Freedom of Information Draft law was born in the framework of the Anti Corruption movement.
CSOs to explore collaborating with Judicial Training Institutes in countries where they exist and also disseminate information during the Open Judiciary Day like in Kenya.
Need for CSOs to engage the diplomatic community on the FOI cause
Need for CSOs to devise strategies for making FOI news worthy enough for the media to publish them.
Need to exploit the opportunity of the regional courts i.e. The East African Community Court East African
Court of Justice and The African Court Human and Peoples’ Rights East African Human Rights Court.
The challenge is that the Implementation Protocol necessary for implementation of the Human Rights
Court is not yet in place.
Conduct studies on the existing legislation to and work on harmonizing them with the FOI principle. Such laws include: secrecy, data protection, media, criminal code, archives and find out those that are FOI compliant.
Educate the media on FOI since it is a cross cutting issue affecting all segments of society. This could be done through capacity building workshops, prices, media briefings.
Effective use of community radio stations for information dissemination on FOI.

Training of journalists, MPs, traditional leaders etc.
100
Linking up with the private sector (PS) and bringing them on the FOI movement. As could mean a good motivation for government to get more open, if that would bring for instance more investments. Example of Sragen and Kebumen Regions in Indonesia, where local governments attracted many investors by becoming more transparent and by simplifying procedures.
Focus on supply side and demand side strategies. For example digital platforms for government business.
Sensitization/empowerment of the communities on using FOI.
Closer follow-up of issues for people in authority.
Coalition building/ strengthening.
Development of IEC materials to mobilize the mass.
Building/strengthening an independent media.
Cause passage of FOI strategies that are people with disabilities (PWDs) specific. Information packaged in form which it be accessed by PWDs. For instance amendments will be passed to the Slovak FOI Law to make documents available in Braill.
Bring on board artists, theatre groups.
Documenting our activities to share amongst our networks.
AFIC and its role for FOI advocacy on the continent.
Create a coalition of MPs who support FOI at national and regional levels.
FOI exhibition e.g. cartoonists, FOI Caravan just like the Olympic Touch, public processions, FOI week/transparency week, drafting a campaign plan (think corporate, think results etc).
CSOs in Rwanda and Burundi need to network with sister CSOs in East Africa to learn and build their capacities in FOI.

101
Presenter: Eszter Filippinyi 42
When to do monitoring? Before or after adoption?
What are the benefits of monitoring?
General study of the FOI system
Specific issues / goals
What do you need for monitoring?
Clear vision: what do you want to achieve by monitoring?
Resources (staff, partners, time, funds)
Technical knowledge
Keep track of your requests (database, software)
Follow up actions after the monitoring
Mexico HIV/AIDS budget transparency Project by Fundar (Center for Analysis & Investigation)
Several actors: National .Center for Prevention & Control of HIV/AIDS (NC), Social Security
Institute., local ministries, Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Education & Social Development.
42 Report published about the 2004 monitoring with the title: TRANSPARENCY AND SILENCE is available in hard copies (in English), please request by email: filippinyi@osi.hu
or you can find it at the Justice Initiative’s website: www.justiceinitiative.org

In 2005 changes in budget allocation and allocation to the NC. Decreased, while a new
Government. Social Security Institute received high support
102
200 FOI requests were submitted by Fundar asking for criteria of selection and distribution of funds
Requests submitted to ministries, health institutions, hospitals.
All requests were answered & in timely manner. But answers were not complete and they were contradictory
Hospitals reallocated funds received from Gov.
On paper and reality were different
No clear responsibilities
Showed lack of accountability mechanisms
Actions taken:
Analysis prepared with input of experts
Present report in different formats to Media / MPs
Find other allies in CS: Health and FOI orgs (one of them publishing weekly in a well known daily)
Approach the legislators
Press conference (5 newsletters published during 3 days to make public pressure)
CN gave support
Mexico HIV/AIDS budget transparency Project
Achievements:

Higher amounts designated to the specialized institutions
 CS participation in the budget planning process
 in 2006 CSOs could closely follow the budget distribution (&budget increase). Improvements were great.
Lessons learned:

Monitoring public funds is beneficial
Strategic alliances are essential
Media campaign helps to bring closer CSO and Gov.
This kind of work requires special knowledge: creates new capacities within the leading CSO.
Spreading news about this kind of projects raises awareness of the public about FOI.
General study of the FOI system
The Justice Initiative AIM Monitoring Tool approach was:
to “test” the system, to monitor how well target
institutions fulfill their obligations to process requests for
information according to:
International standards for FOI
National FOI legislation (or other related legislation, if any)
Comparative Results For 14 Countries - 2004
AFRICA (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa)
EUROPE (Armenia, Bulgaria, France, Macedonia, Romania, Spain)
LATIN AMERICA (Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Peru)
103

Responses to 1,926 Requests in 14 Countries by Type of Outcome
Refusal to accept
5%
Unable to Submit
4%
Information received
22%
Mute refusal
47%
Findings and Conclusions:
Access to Information (FOI) Laws help
Government silence
Countries in transition scored better
Regional variations exist
Civil Society involvement helps
Results inconsistent
Noncompliance varied
Discrimination affects response
Oral refusal
4%
Written refusal
3%
Partial access
1%
Information not held
3%
Transferred/ referred
8%
Inadequate
response
3%
104

Refusal almost never in writing
100%
Mute Refusals and other non-compliant outcomes oral refusal
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
4%
8%
9%
47%
Total
2%
6%
12%
38%
With FOI Law
7%
13%
7%
56%
Without FOI Law
Mute refusals as a percentage of all requests, by country
80%
70%
60%
61% 61%
50%
40%
47%
36%
31%
30%
20%
10%
21%
24%
0%
To tal
M exi co
Bul gari a
Ro m ani a
Arm en ia
39%
40%
44% 44%
Per u
Arg en tina
M ac ed oni a
Ni ger ia
Fran ce
51%
Sp ai n
Ken ya
So uth
Af ric a
62%
69%
Chi le
Ghana
73% inadequate information, information not held and transfer/referral
(where non-compliant) non-submission: unable to submit and refusal to accept
Mute Refusal
105

Ranking of Compliance by Geographic Region
60%
50%
40%
30%
42%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total Europe
28%
LA
13%
Africa
Performance of Institutions by Type
0
0
0
0
0
36%
30%
0
0
0
0
E nv iron me nt on al
Cou rt
Regi
26%
23%
Information Received
21%
20%
18%
17%
Lo cal
Fi na nc e
S oc ial
S er vi ces
S upr eme
Cou rt
Defe ns e
P ar liam ent
16%
12%
7%
Jus tic e
Nat.
E xec
.
P ar as tat al s
South Africa: Different Treatment of Different Requestors
106

107
60%
40%
Information received (late)
Information received
20%
10%
0%
Pr o-
G ov er nm ne t J ou rn al is
O t pp os iti on al
J ou rn al is t
25%
NG
O
1
10%
15%
5%
15%
5%
10%
15%
NG
O
2
Bu si ne ss
P er so n
No n-
Af fil ia te d
Pe rs cl ud ed
G on ro up
R ep re se nt at iv
Ex e
0%
Introduction
This presentation describes an access to information monitoring project conducted by Media Rights Agenda in
Nigeria between March & May 2007. The objective of the project was to assess the information disclosure practices of some MDAs at the federal (national), state & local government levels in Nigeria.
The methodology was based largely on the monitoring tool developed by Open Society Justice Initiative.
Types of Institutions Selected
The following types of institutions were selected to be monitored:
 Institutions were selected to cover the three arms of government (Executive, Legislature & Judiciary)
 Institutions were also selected to cover the three tiers of government in Nigeria (Federal, States & Local
Government Councils).
Scope of Requests
 14 requesters were deployed to submit requests to various government MDAs.
 Requesters submitted between 6 & 9 requests each.

108
 A total of 99 requests were submitted by all the requesters.
 6 requesters submitted questions to 16 Federal Government MDAs in Abuja
 8 requesters submitted requests in MDAs in Lagos State & Local Government Councils in the State.
Subject Areas Covered by Requests
 The 99 requests were based on issues of public interest & covered a variety of subjects that can be described as FAQ by members of the public.
 They included finance, health, environment, water supply, transportation, security, etc.
 The questions in the requests were categorized as “Routine”, “Sensitive” & “Difficult”
Types of Requesters
The following types of requesters were selected:
 A Woman: To find out how government MDAs respond to women requesting information as against men.
 Journalist from State Media: To ascertain whether journalists in state media are more likely to have access to government-held information.
 Journalist from Private Media: To determine how public officers respond to requests for information by journalists from privately-owned media.
 Non-Affiliated Person: To ascertain whether lack of affiliation of a requester has any effect on his ability to obtain requested information.
 Business Person: To assess how government officials respond to requests from people who might require information for commercial reasons.
 NGO Staff: To assess how government officials respond to requests from a sector that is usually viewed as anti-government.
 A Non-literate Person: To assess how seriously government officials take non-literate members of the public requesting information, how much assistance such persons receive & whether they are able to obtain the requested information.

 A student : To determine whether the fact that a person might require information merely for research or academic purposes has any effect on the manner in which government officials respond to such requests.
109
 To facilitate comparative analysis, 3 requesters submitted different requests to each public institution.
 In some cases, where it was possible, the same request was submitted to different public institutions by different requesters
Ensuring Integrity of the Process
 A number of steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the process
 The selected requesters & other project personnel were carefully trained about all aspects of the project.
 They were to ensure that none of the public institutions receiving the request was aware that there was monitoring exercise going on to avoid a distortion of the outcome.
 The requesters were to make 2 follow-ups within 2 weeks of submitting the requests.
Responses
 Based on the provisions of the Nigerian Freedom of Information Bill, which had then been passed by the
National Assembly, 10 working days was put as the cut-off date for receiving responses.
 Any response not received within this period was deemed a refusal.
 In reality, no response was actually received after this period.
Outcome of the Exercise
 The results of the exercise were appalling.
 At the Federal level, only 66.6% of the total requests meant for Federal MDAs were submitted/accepted by the institutions
 At the State level, approximately 85% of the requests were submitted (or accepted);
 At the local government level, 79% of the requests were accepted/submitted.
 In most of the cases, the requesters were unable to obtain the requested information or any response, despite follow-ups

 At the Federal level, 78% of the requests were refused.
 At the State level, 43% of the requests were refused.
At the Local government council level, 58% of the requests were refused.
110
Chart showing the number of administered requests
(in percentage terms) that were refused
78%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
43%
58%
Federal State
Tiers of Government
Loc. Govt
 Even in cases where there were responses, the answers were either incomplete or the responses were verbal, in which case the affected public institutions refused to give a written response.
 At the Federal level, 12% of the responses were incomplete answers
 At the State level, 9% of the responses were incomplete.
 At Local government council level, 5% of the responses were incomplete
 The results showed some improvement over the results from an earlier exercise in 2004.
 However, from the personal experiences of requesters it was clear those attitudes of public officers towards government-held information remain largely the same: that it is government information.
 One requester was told that information requested was not meant for the public.
 Another requestor was asked to give reasons why she needed the information she requested.
 A number of requesters were threatened or intimidated in some government institutions, particularly in the
Presidency, the National Assembly & the Ministry of Defence.

 In these and some other offices, the requesters, were not allowed beyond the gates by the security men & some were warned not to show up again.
111
 At the Ikeja Local Government Council, an official was willing to respond to the request but did not have functional secretariat facilities.
 The official therefore dictated his response to the request gave the requester the council’s letter-headed paper
& asked him to go & type out the answers himself!
Access to Information Implementation Index: Establishing a baseline measurement
‘Lobbying is lobbying is lobbying; Advocacy is advocacy is advocacy’
The rules are the same
• All legislative lobbying requires expertise and knowledge.
 This is especially so in the case of access to information legislation
• There is no substitute for convincing, well-researched and reasoned arguments; and,
• In the case of access to information, there is a huge and growing quantity of comparative research.
What was the problem?
Build up a body of evidence in order to strengthen your case on an advocacy position
Be creative in how you collect information. The FOI field is relatively new and ideas on collection and usage of information are limitless
The ODAC ATI Implementation Index
 Designed to recognising best practice in the implementation of FOI laws the by national government departments
 Research is conducted over a three to six month period,

 Twenty-five (25) to a hundred (100) public bodies
 measured and scored against four main categories,
 Each category comprising a set of indicators.
Categories for measurement
 Road map (6 indicators, 6 points)
 Records management (6 indicators, 6 points)
 Internal mechanisms (24 indicators, 24 points)
112
 Resources (14 indicators, 14 points).
Roadmap Indicators a.
Is the process for submitting requests readily available to requestors and does the process of submitting requests accommodate different ways of making a request? b.
Does the institution list the Information Officer and/or Deputy Information(s) as the focal point for information requests? c.
Are full contact details provided including physical address, postal address, fax number and e-mail address? d.
Is there a list of all categories of records held by the institution, which also identifies those records which can be disclosed and those which cannot? e.
Is there a list of all categories of records held? f.
Is the list disaggregated to show categories of records held which are routinely available? g.
Is the list disaggregated to show categories of records held which are available on request? h.
Is there a list of categories of records held which cannot be disclosed?
Records Management Indicators a.
Is there an efficient system for the storage and organization of records? b.
What system is used to organize records?

113 c.
What system is used to archive information? Has a Records Manager been appointed? Does the
Records Manager above have any responsibilities in terms of PAIA implementation? Is there a file plan?
Are there rules governing the generation of a record?
Internal Mechanism
 Is there a system for recording and reporting on both the number of requests received and how they were responded to?
 Is there a log of requests?
 Are the numbers of requests received provided?
 Is the information being requested captured by the system?
 Are the responses to the requests provided?
 Is the date when the request was responded to provided?
 Are requests recorded in detail?
 Number of requests received?
 Responses to the requests?
 Appeals lodged?
 Are there adequate internal guidelines for frontline officials on how to handle requests?
 Are frontline staffs instructed on how to deal with requestors?
 Are frontline staffs provided with a referral list of the Deputy Information Officers?
 Do frontline staffs know about PAIA?
 Do frontline staffs refer requestors to the Deputy Information Officer or equivalent?
 Are there effective internal procedures for processing requests and communicating with requestors to ensure that requests are responded to within 30 days?

114
 Are requests acknowledged upon receipt?
 Is there an internal tracking system?
 Is the system above manual or electronic?
 If the system is electronic, was it specifically designed for handling and processing PAIA requests?
 Are there time frames indicating the internal routing of the request?
 Are there adequate internal procedures for assisting disadvantaged requestors?
 Are there standing orders for assisting visually impaired requestors?
 Are there standing orders for assisting illiterate requestors?
 Are there standing orders for assisting requestors who are unable to communicate in English/ the working language of government?
 Other than IT-based communication tools, such as websites, how else does the institution share information with members of the public?
 Does the institution have a policy of waiving request fees from requestors who are unemployed or can't afford to pay the request fee?
 Is there an implementation plan which operationalises the Act?
 Is there an internal rule that encourages regular publication of records?
Resource Indicators a.
Are there financial resources allocated to the implementation of the Act? b.
Have staff been designated and trained to facilitate access to information? c.
Have staff been designated and trained to facilitate access to information? d.
Training received? e.
Specific responsibilities of designated staff? f.
Is there a unit, or equivalent dedicated structure, established to monitor and coordinate the implementation of the Act?

g.
To whom does the structure report?
115 h.
Has the Director-General/Head of Department/Municipal Manager authorized the establishment of an implementation structure for PAIA? i.
What are its terms of reference? j.
How often does it meet? k.
Who are its members? (Note: Official designations. We are testing for seniority of the members) l.
Are there adequate incentives in place to ensure that staffs comply with the Act and sanctions for noncompliance? m.
Code of conduct? n.
Incentives e.g. compulsory training, monetary rewards?
Presenter: Eszter Filippinyi (OSJI)
Design your monitoring!
What institutions do you want to address? ( requestee )
Who should submit the requests? ( requestor )
What kind of questions & how many do you want to submit? ( request )
What kind of follow up you will make to your requests?
What do you do with the outcome?
Do you have sufficient technical knowledge to analyze the answers received?
After monitoring:
Presenting results in appropriate way to your target audience
Follow up with activities (trainings, advocacy, lobbying, litigation, etc)

Possible outcomes:
Information received
Partial access
Information not held
Incomplete answer
Mute refusal
Oral refusal
Written refusal
Transferred request
Referred request
Unable to submit.
Refusal to accept.
116
Outcomes can be evaluated in terms of:
Timeliness

whether the outcome is received by the timelines set by the relevant FOIA or not.
Justification

whether referrals, transfers, partial responses, information not held, or refusals are appropriate (justified) or not.
Compliance

whether outcomes are in compliance with the relevant FOIA or not. Late outcomes and unjustified outcomes are non-compliant, and other outcomes such as mute refusal, UAS and RTA are noncompliant by definition.
1. The Software
The software consists of 3 components:
1. The Template function
The template files contain the basic design parameters of a monitoring project.
Once created, Template files may be saved, used again, altered, exported, and used to create session files.

2. The Session function
117
Session files contain both the design of he monitoring and the actual data collected in the monitoring project.
3. The Support function
These are the library, export/import, administrator, etc.
Below is a template to demonstrate how the software presents itself when being used.

118

119

120
Introduction
Contextualizing Freedom of Information is very important to the layman who has the right to vote and have knowledge of the electoral process. The records of elections in Africa have gone downhill. Elections held in the countries of Ethiopia, Nigeria, Kenya and Zimbabwe can attest to this and leave a lot to be desired. Many elections are coming up in Africa a case in point are the parliamentary elections in Angola, presidential elections in
Ghana, and South Africa which calls for a need to improve on the right to vote.
9.11 Kenya
During the Parliamentary and Presidential elections in Kenya in 2007, both the media and CSOs were caught unprepared and as a result the Freedom of Information to advocate for a free and fair election was not put to good use.
At the time of Election, access to information is limited. In Kenya what came to light on the election process were funds that were mobilized by parties for electioneering that came to light of which the Orange Democratic
Movement mobilized Ksh. 450 million; PNU (rulling party) Ksh. 350; others Ksh. 326 million.
The voters register was not accessible to the public which affected CSOs vigilance. There exist no media ethics regulation hence the media did not report responsibly which escalated electoral violence during and after the elections and the constitution in Kenya does not recognize the right to vote. The constitutional amendment process will take care of that.
9.12 Cameroon
As the wave of liberalization was sweeping through Africa, Cameroon some what was missed. This is evident in the continuous centralization of government services.
The President of Cameroon is the “god of Cameroon”. He decides on how the constitution can be manipulated to suit his goals. The former constititution had a five year limit but this has been amended and there are no term limits in the amended constitution.
Most elections organized in the country have been marred by vote rigging like the 2004 and 2007 presidential elections.

The country has no constitutional court where legal cases would be heard. There exists no decentralization which also impedes participation.
Information on the Voters’ register is considered confidential and can be accessed by the Public.
121
9.13 India
The use of modern technology in India has reduced on the cases of electoral related offences like vote rigging.
Use of money to buy votes in India is a big problem as indicated in a recent survey where between 10-15% of the
MPs were found to be law breakers. The Judicial process in India has been the biggest hindrance to getting timely justice. The big loophole that exists is that of lengthy court proceedings hence delayed justice.
However, there has been a big emphasis on the voter’s right to know in the country where candidates are compelled to declare movable and immovable assets and those of dependants that have a money value attached to know how rich such a candidate is and for accountability purposes when voted in political office.
 FOI Advocates need to train the media on the content of existing electoral laws and FOI so that they are well equipped and prepared to work efficiently and effectively during electoral processes.
 FOI Advocates need to be vigilant during elections periods and try to match results declared at polling stations with those declared by the Electoral Commission. Vigilance should not begin at the time of election but way before that time. It is important to note that rigging starts far way back before real voting.
 FOI Advocates create awareness in the using of Atlanta Declaration and codify the principles to meet the needs of our countries especially since political campaign financing goes hand in hand with corruption in many countries.
 There is need to advocate for transparent ballot boxes to enhance transparency during elections.

122
Presented by: Mukelani Dimba (ODAC)
The South African Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) has come to be internationally regarded as a gold standard FOI legislation, however our experience with the FOI law in South Africa shows that we must be cautious of coming to conclusions about access to information in South Africa based merely on a highly regarded piece of legislation and, more broadly, this experience suggest that countries that have not yet adopted freedom of information legislation need to realize that just passing a law in itself does not promote access to information.
More efforts must be put towards making the law work.
In the South African FOI law the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) – a constitutional body - is tasked with monitoring and reporting on implementation of the law.
We believe that these obligations of the SAHRC are appropriate and, despite some slow progress in the beginning, over the last couple of years the SAHRC has done a lot to meet its educational and promotional obligations in terms of the Act and we are encouraged by their many efforts at making the law works as it should..
Despite the role played by the SAHRC in making the law work, there is still a gap in its mandate: it still doesn’t have any adjudicatory function in terms of the decisions to withhold information. This is a necessary condition that the South African law lacks and it goes back to the decision to drop the provision for the establishment of an office of the Information Commissioner during parliamentary deliberations 43 . The removal of the provision for an information commissioner in the South African FOI law was a result of the strength of the South African judiciary in lobbying for the deletion of this provision and a weakness of other stakeholders in lobbying for the retention of the provision.
The judiciary lobbied hard for the deletion of this clause because they felt there was no need for information courts or other tribunals to hear cases on FOI “because the judiciary would be more than competent” to preside over such cases, so the argument went. The argument was accepted by Parliament but bedeviled the success of the law after its passage. This decision during the passage of Act has been a source of major concern.
In a number of forums, stakeholders identified the lack of a better dispute resolution mechanism on requests for information as a major challenge to the success of the law. In terms of the South African law applicants for
43 The earlier versions of the Bill provided for creation of the Office of the Open Democracy Commission and Information Courts.

123 information held by public bodies are restricted in their right of appeal to the same body that refused access, followed by appeal to the High Court. Requestors who are aggrieved about the decision on an Information
Officer in the private sector do not have an option to appeal internally within the private body but have to directly approach the High Court for relief. In both these instances this is an extremely expensive and lengthy process that is out of the reach to a vast majority of South Africans.
It is for this reason that organizations present at the 2003 PAIA Indaba (conference) called for:
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs [to] review the options for the establishment of a new independent review mechanism that would provide an excess- remedy for citizens in respect of their Access to Information requests.
44
In the same year, the Act was amended to make it possible for PAIA cases to be heard at Magistrates Courts and not only at the High Courts as had been the case before this amendment. However this is unlikely to make a substantial difference in terms of cost, speed and specializations for two reasons: a) The Magistrates Court remains a lawyer-centric forum and a far cry from the administrative tribunal systems that operate in other jurisdictions, and b) We currently cannot go to the Magistrates Court on PAIA disputes because no rules have been issued by the Rules Board after close to five years of amendment of the Act to allow for magistrates to preside over these issues. This means no progress is possible there.
Until we have such an alternative dispute resolution forum such as an Information Ombud or Commissioner, the slow and expensive process of the High Court establishing the limits of PAIA will continue.
The problems of implementation (lack of awareness and responsiveness) as stated above and the lack of rules at the Courts of law for dealing with PAIA reveal how crucial it is to have in place a properly constituted information commission or information ombud. We believe that if the PAIA is to work, particularly for vulnerable communities and groups, it is essential that its appeal procedures are inexpensive, quick and easy to use. This is the reason why major advocacy work in South Africa now is for the establishment of the office of the information commissioner.
By including this provision in the Kenyan draft law 45 the drafters have ensured that the Kenyan law has enjoys the necessary condition for it to thrive. This is the strongest provision in the Kenyan draft law and it is a bedrock
44 REPORT ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PAIA INDABA: 22 and 23 May 2003 / South African Human Rights Commission.
-- Johannesburg: South African Human Rights omission, 2004. (Report)
45 Please see Annexure A for our comments on the proposal for an Information Commission(er) in the Kenyan FOI Law.

upon which the law will succeed or collapse as we have learnt in South Africa. We are still lobbying the government and parliament on this matter. We believe that the creation of such an appeal mechanism will:
124
 Enable requestors to more readily challenge mute and actual denials;
 Build up a larger body of jurisprudence faster;
 Help establish good practice and higher standards.
Despite initial doubts about the prospects for such a venture, it seems now that these advocacy efforts can succeed especially since the SAHRC has expressed support for this idea and also because the South African Law
Reform Commission is currently working on a draft bill on protection of personal information and other data. In all likelihood we will need a data protection agency to implement such legislation. Cost considerations would suggest that a practical solution would be to combine such an agency with an information commission. This would also allow development of a consistent jurisprudence on access and privacy, avoiding the inter-agency conflicts.
The SALRC makes such recommendations in the Privacy and Data Protection Discussion Paper 109 (Project
124) and the subsequent – but still unofficial - draft bill. The Discussion Paper suggests that a Commissioner should be responsible for the implementation of both the Protection of Personal Information Act and the
Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000.
Our advocacy efforts may also be rewarded positively following the recent release in August 2007 of a report by our Parliament’s Ad Hoc Committee on Review of State Institutions Supporting Democracy wherein the
Committee called for appointment of a dedicated Information Commissioner within the SAHRC. We believe this recommendation is a new dawn for transparency and human rights in South Africa and our advocacy efforts are now aimed at implementation of these recommendations.

125
The way forward made had into consideration the different stages of FOI implementation of the different countries at the Conference.
Legislation and Public Bodies
 Lobby for penalties to check those who do not provide information as required by the FOI Law.
 Information Officers should be appointed and trained for consistency in the implementation of FOI.
These should be designated for the different disciplines in an organization.
 Lobby for oversight multi-stakeholder body (ies) to be put in place to monitor Government’s compliance on FOI. An independent multi-stakeholder information commission to be put in place the procedures for making requests and the grounds on which requests can be granted or not.
 Need for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) legislative watch on the legislature to prevent the passage of roll back legislation. CSOs will monitor the implementation of FOI Laws through a user- friendly software (Justice Initiative’s open source at no cost, as a monitoring tool) to monitor the requests honored by Government and its compliance with the Law.
 Use International Human Rights instruments and bodies as guiding principles on FOI for countries without the Law.
 Draft a campaign plan for easy implementation of FOI activities during significant celebrations like the transparency week, Know Day (28 September) etc.
 Cause passage of freedom of information strategies that are specific to the needs of People with
Disabilities (PWDs). FOI Information should be packaged in a PWDs user friendly way.
 Analyze and lobby for harmonization of different laws influencing the right of access to information, such as secrecy law, archive law, criminal code, etc
Media
 Get the media on board through capacity building in investigative journalism, reporting on legislative proceedings and on procedures of handling emergence situations with a view of building and strengthening an independent media.
 Use community radios to thrust the Freedom to Information agenda in Africa.
Litigation

126
 Use strategic public interest litigation. Not only the local courts but the National and International courts should be used to fight for justice on FOI.
 Use Legal clinics and paralegals to engage the grass root forces to popularize Freedom of Information
Laws.
Judiciary
 Dialogue with the Judiciary on Freedom of Information through meetings, workshops, Judiciary Training
Institutes and also use the Open Judiciary Day as a platform to create awareness on Freedom of
Information.
Coalition strengthening
 Create alliances with legislators and ministries through continuous lobbying, capacity building and awareness raising on laws passed by parliament.
 At national, regional and international level, ( www.foiadvocates.net
and the AFIC listserv and website, create effective coalitions to take FOI advocacy ahead and where they exist there is a need for their strengthening.
 HURINET-U to spearhead the strengthening of the Ugandan Coalition on FOI through recruitment of new members and capacity building on FOI and regular information sharing.
 FOI Advocates to create a link and work with other sectors like the private sector, business sector, religious sector and cultural institutions (e.g. kingdoms, chiefdoms, etc.) with the sole purpose of advancing the FOI Law. Have a deliberate and concerted effort/ program to engage with those at the grass root institutions, movements and opinion shapers by either logging on to their campaigns or by supporting them in their struggles especially in areas where access to information would advance the grassroots causes so that they too, understand and own the FOI Campaign.
 Do coordinated monitoring projects, involving most of the coalition members and other CSOs.
 Use law clinics (or in absence of them students of law, communication and/or journalism) as centers for requesters to articulate request, make submissions and follow up on them.
 Develop long term and short term strategies for FOI campaigns and also map out long term project plan and schedule of activities

Public Awareness
127
 Make publication schemes/manuals to include an inventory giving information on Information Officers,
Deputy Information Officers, and information available to the public and the procedures on how such information can be got.
 Make public awareness campaigns to bring on board people at the grass root in all countries present and have it incorporated in the different organization programmes.
 Use significant day celebrations like Human Rights Day, International Right to Know Day, Judiciary Days as a platform for raising awareness on the right to information.
 Make the Freedom of Information law manageable and easy to read for the people at the grass root.
HURINET-U to link with CHRI to make easy to read hand books and also develop IEC Materials on freedom to information law in Uganda.
 Encourage transparency within government municipalities, by organizing competitions and provide awards for the best and worst performers and publish these in the media with the aim of raising awareness.
 Document information through audio and visual documentaries, brochures, leaflets, newsletters, brailled documents and share amongst coalition members during celebrations to mark significant days or information sharing activities.
 Make Freedom to Information exhibitions to include cartoonists, FOI Caravans and public processions not only at the national level but also at the regional and International levels with the sole aim of creating awareness.
 Use law clinics for awareness on use of FOI through street law campaigns that will target local communities and other vulnerable groups

128
Ms Faith Mwondha, the Inspector General of Government (IGG) closed the conference. She noted that for the
Ugandan situation where there is no Ministry of Good Governance, it would have been better to create one since the Directorate of Ethics is not sufficient to fight corruption.
She further reiterated the need to popularize the constitution since there exists majority youthful Ugandans who do not understand it well. She noted the need for its translation into local language, a provision enshrined in the constitution.
She lamented the bad tendency by many Ugandans who demand for information from her office only during election period. Such demands are likely to be for malicious reasons to be used against political opponents she noted.
She called upon the conference delegates to turn to God as a means of inculcating morals and ethical values in our lives and society at large as a way to fight corruption.

DAY ONE 21 APRIL 2008
Advocacy strategies for securing the enactment of
Freedom of Information legislation
Time
8.30
Session
Arrival and Registration- Betty Male and Joan Asiimwe
9.00
9.05
9.10
9.30-11:30am
Opening and Introduction
Welcome Address
Mohammed Ndifuna & Patrick T
Mr. Kadaali Stephen
Keynote speaker and Official opening of the conference Hon.
Kirunda Kivenjija Minister of Information and National Guidance
SESSION 1
INTRODUCTION
Context to Freedom of Information
Introduction, concepts and objectives - Patrick Tumwine
What does the conference want to achieve- - Maxwell Kadiri
What are the participant’s expectations? - Eszter Filippiny i
129
The Status of Access to Information in East Africa, other African countries and beyond – Brief overview
Uganda – Mr. Kagole kivumbi
Kenya Pricilla Nyokabi
Tanzania- M ohammed Tibanyerendera
Rwanda- Paul Mutagoma
Burundi- Pierre Claver
Other countries
Ghana
Nigeria
Cameron
South Africa
Hungary
Senegal

11:30-12:00pm
12.00-1:30pm
1:30-2:30pm
2:30-3:15
3.15-3:45pm
India
Indonesia
Morning Tea
SESSION 2
APPROACHES TO ADVOCACY
Problems with current legislations in EA and Beyond
Significant demands
Lessons to learn
Challenges and solutions of the enactment of Freedom of Information
Uganda Prof. Jjuko (MUK)
Tanzania- Mohammed Tibanyendera
Kenya - Pricilla Nyokabi
Rwanda – Paul Mutagoma
Burundi - Pierre Claver
Other African countries and beyond
Lunch
Effective FOI strategies & Lessons from other countries in Africa-
Successfully dealing with Government
Lobbying strategies
Litigation as a strategy
Overcoming future challenges
Sandy Coliver (OSI)- and Mukelani Dimba-ODAC
Afternoon Tea
SESSION 3
COALITION STRENGTHENING
3.45
4.15
5.00
5.10
Coalition strengthening -
Discussion
Closing speaker
End of day one
Edetaen Ojo (MRA)
Richard Mugisha
6:30pm Welcome Dinner - Chief Guest - Esther Loeffen (RNE)
DAY TWO 22 APRIL 2008
130

131
Practical Approaches to effective strategies for ensuring the implementation of the Freedom of
Information
Time Session
9.00-10:30pm
SESSION 4
GAPS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Gaps in implementation and practical solutions-
Lack of awareness by public bodies/private bodies & Individuals
Poor information management systems (absence of record management policies and file plans)
Awareness campaigns
Training for information officers
Eszter Filippinyi (OSI)
10:30-11:00am
11:00-12:45pm
Morning Tea
Gaps in implementation and practical solutions:
Protection for disclosing evidence
Problems of current legislation promoting secrecy
Complementary persons legislation
Nayak Venkatesh (CHRI)
Lunch 12:45-1:45pm
2:00-3:00pm
SESSION 5
BARRIERS TO THE REALISATION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Testing and extending the limits of accessibility
Freedom of Information in the private sector Creating an effective complaints and appeals process
Mukelani Dimba-ODAC
3.00-3:30pm Afternoon Tea
SESSION 6
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT
3.30
4.15
5.00
Roles of those involved, NGOs, individuals and Government
Filling the gaps of responsibility
Eszter Filippinyi
Discussion
Closing speaker - Baglo

5.10 End of day two
DAY THREE 23 APRIL 2008
Monitoring Government compliance on the Freedom of Information
Time Session
9.00-10:30am
10.30-11:00am
11.00-
SESSION 7
EFFECTIVLEY HANDLING A CULTURE OF SECRECY
How to monitor information in a culture of secrecy-
Usage of information
Responding to Government hesitations
Eszter Filippinyi
Morning Tea
1.00
2.00
3.00
Skills on using modern ICT tools for monitoring Freedom of Information
Different ICT tools
Practical sessions
( Eszter Filippinyi )
Lunch
How do we design an effective oversight mechanism? – South Africa Experience
Mukelani Dimba-ODAC
Afternoon Tea
3.30
4:00pm
5.00pm
Way forward group discussion- Edetaen Ojo (MRA)
Closing speaker- The Inspector General of government (IGG)
End of conference
SESSION 8
WAY FORWARD
132
Name Country Organization
Mr. Maxwell Kadiri Nigeria Open Society
Initiative
Ms Sandra Coliver USA Open Society
Position Conference Role
Associate Share about what the legal officer conference wants to achieve.
Senior Legal Speak about FOI
Contacts
Maxwell@mrakabissa.or
g scoliver@justiceinitiative

133
Ms. Eszter
Filippinyi
Ms Priscilla
Nyokabi
Prof. JW Jjuuko
Initiative Officer strategies and lessons from other countries.
Hungary Open Society Justice Programme Cover session
Initiative officer 1;participants’ for freedom expectations of
Information and expression
Kenya Internal Commission of Jurists
.org
filippinyi@osi.hu
Uganda Makerere Univesity Senior
Lecturer
Speak about the status Nyokabi@icj-kenya.org
of access to
Information in Kenya.
Talk about the problems with current legislation in Uganda jjuuko@law.mak.ac.ug
Mr.Kagole Kivumbi Uganda Prime minister’s
Mohammed
Tibanyendera
Edetaen Ojo
Mr.Mukelani Dimba South
Africa office
Director of Speak about the information status of access to information in Uganda
Tanzania Media Institute of
South Africa
Advocate/
Broadcasting officer
Speak about the status tibanyendera@yahoo.co
of access to information in
Tanzania m
Nigeria Media Rights Agenda Executive
Director
Cover session#3;Coalition strengthening edet@mediarightsagenda
.org
Open Democracy
Advice Centre
Deputy
Chief
Executive
Officer
Mr.Paul Mutagoma Rwanda Youth Association for Human Rights
Promotion and
Facilitate session#5;
Barriers to the realization of freedom of information
Dimba@opendemocrac y.org
Speak about the status mutapaul@yahoo.fr
of access to information in Rwanda

134
Mr. Pierre Claver
Mr. Patrick
Tumwine
Mr.Nayak
Venkatesh
Burundi United Nations
Uganda Human Rights Net
Work-Uganda
Mr. Mugisha
Richard
©2008 www.eastafricanfoiconference.org
development
India Common Wealth
Human Rights
Initiative
Uganda Open Society
Initiative
Speak about the status nzeyimap@un.org of access to information in Burundi
Advocacy,
Research
Share tumwinep@yahoo.com
session#1;Introduction, advocacy@hurinet.or.ug
and
Information concepts and objectives officer
Speak about the gaps Nayak.venkatesh@gmail in implementation and .com
practical solutions rmugisha@osi.org
Programme Session #3 Closing officer speaker
International Delegates
1 TANZANIA Mr. Mohammed
Tibanyendera Media Institute of South Africa-
Tanzania
+255 22 213 7547 tibanyendera@yahoo.com/ misatan@africaonline.co.tz

2 TANZANIA
3 TANZANIA
4 TANZANIA
5 RWANDA
6 RWANDA
7 NIGERIA
8 NIGERIA
9 NIGERIA
10 NIGERIA
11 REP. OF
HUNGARY
12 SOUTH
AFRICA
13 GHANA
Mr. Edmund Sengondo
Mvungi
Mr. ReginaldMartin
Faculty of Law University of
Dar es Salaam
+255 0784 352552 smvungi@uccmail.co.tz
Legal and HumanRights Centre +255 713 252 520 regiemart@yahoo.co.uk
lhrc@humanrights.or.tz
Media Council of Tanzania +255 0713254603
+255 22 2775728
Pili Mtambalike pilimtamba@yahoo.com
media@mct.or.tz
Mr. Mutagoma Paul Youth association for Human
Rights Promotion development and
+250 (0) 8588308 mutapaul@yahoo.fr
Ms Furaha Umutoni Alida HAGURUKA-Rwanda +250 (0)8636620 tonif4@yahoo.fr
haguruka@rwanda1.com
Ms. Enonche Odu Enes
Mrs. Odinakaonye Lagi
Mr. Edetaen Ojo
Mr. Maxwell Kadiri
Ms Eszter Filippinyi
+2348034516807
African Freedom of Information
Centre-Lagos ene@mediarightsagenda.org
eenonche@yahoo.com
+234 8037877095
Network of University Legal
Aid Institute (NULAI)
Odinakaonyelagi@yahoo.com
edet@mediarightsagenda.org
Media Rights Agenda- Lagos
+2348037145991
Open Society Initiative
+2348033304055
Maxwell@mra.kabissa.org
filippinyi@osi.hu
Open Society Justice Initiative-
Budapest 1051
Mr. Mukelani Dimba
Open Democracy Advice
Centre- Cape Town
Ms. Jeanette Quarcoopome
Media Foundation for West
Africa
+27 21 461 3096
+ 27 82 699 S6586 dimba@opendemocracy.org
+233 21 242470 j-quarcoopome@yahoo.com
135

12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
GHANA
GHANA
SENEGAL
NEW YORK
INDONESIA
INDONESIA
INDONESIA
INDONESIA
INDIA
CAMEROON
ZAMBIA
Mr. Kingham Joseph Ochill +233 244 998 600
Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative, African Office, Accra kingochili@yahoo.com
Nakazibwe Florence +233 249 566169
CHRI
Mr. Gabriel Baglo nakazf@yahoo.com
221 338 420 142
International Federation of
Journalists
221 842 01 42/43
Ms. Sandra Coliver
Mr Ahamed Faisol
African office
Open Society Initiative
NewYork NY 10019
ISAI gabriel.baglo@ifjafrique.org
+917 361 5618 scoliver@justiceinitiative.org
Ms Cynthia Monica Vision of the Children of the
Nation
(62)21 85911830 faisol@isai.or.id
(62)21 724 7086 tia@visianakbangsa.com
Ms Yuli Ismarton
Ms TantiI Budi Suryani
Nayak Vankatesh
Agnes EBO’O
TIFA Foundation
TIFA Foundation
CHRI
Citizen’s Governance Initiative
(CGI)
(62)21 391 6160 tanti@tifafoundation.org
tanti@tifafoundation.org
Rachel-corie@yahoo.com
+91 987 1050556
+91 11 26850523 nayak.venkatesh@gmail.com
+237 75 35 86 22
Fanwell Chembo
MADAGASCAR Mr. Brice Lejamble
MISA
Comite pour la Souvegarde de
1’1ntegrite agnesmarcelle@yahoo.com
+260 1 292 09617 fanwell@misazambia.org.zn
261 320558 408
261 20 22 29170 brice@sni.mg
136

25
26 MOZAMBIQUE Mr. Alfredo Libombo
Fernandes Tomas
MISA
27 KENYA Ms. Priscilla Nyokabi
28 KENYA Francis Muroki
International Commission of
Jurists
Association for free and
+258823025459 libombo@misa.org.mz
+254 721 881 853 nyokabi@icj-kenya.org
+254 722738244
137

29 KENYA
30 KENYA
31 KENYA
32 KENYA
33 KENYA
34 KENYA
1
Uganda delegates
Prof. J.W Jjuuko
2 Solomon Muyita
3 Rachael Kiyingi
4 Michael Wambi
Miss Stella Chege-
Wangui Mbatia
Mr. Onyango Oloo
Lawrence Mute
Mr. Christopher Gitari
Mr. Bryan Kahumbura
Independent Media
FAHAMU francismuroki@yahoo.com
+254 725 721 623 stella@fahamu.org
Kenya Association of Grassroots
NGOS
254 722 747575 infokengo@gmail.com
Kenya
Association
Correspondents williamjanak@yahoo.com
+254 722 69 97 927
Kenya National Commission on
Human Rights
+254 20 2717908/28 lmute@knchr.org
International Commission on
Jurists
+254 20 3875981/630338 chrisgitari@icj-kenya
Transparency International
+254 272776315
+254 20 2727763/5
BKAHUIMBURA@TIKENY
A.ORG
138
Makerere University
Uganda Court Reporters Association
East African Media Institute
Uganda Parliamentary Press
+256 0772 563 581 jjuko@law.mak.ac.uk
+256 0782 386 899/0712200 725 smuyita@gmail.com
+256 0782 386 899 rnnakaahwa@yahoo.com
+256 0752 530 413

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Robert Lugolobi
Loyce Kyogabirwe
Bazira Henry
Dan Marlone
Kamugisha Dickens
Paul Kimumwe
Agaba Maureen
Andrew Bahemuka
Robert Lugolobi
Cissy Kagaba
Atim Miriam
Wokulira Ssebagala
Esther Kyozira
Rev. Kalyebara Steven
Japhes Mukiibi Biimbwa
Transparency International wambimicheal@gmail.com
+256 0772 430 043 robertlugolobi@yahoo.co.uk
0773 108 636/0414 543953 kloyce@isis.or.ug
ISIS-WICCE
NAPE
Marlone Multimedia
AFIEGO
PANOS
FIDA
Rapportour
+256 0752 859475 bazirah@yahoo.co.uk
+256 0772 883 434 dmarlone@yahoo.com
+256 0782 407 085 dickensmukiga@yahoo.com
+256 0712 666 933 kimumwe@yahoo.com
+256 0772 820 110 maureen15@yahoo.com
+256 0772553817 akiikiandrew@yahoo.com
+256 0772430043 robertlugolobi@yahoo.co.uk
Transparency International
Anti-corruption Coalition-Uganda
+256 0414 286 923/+256 0772628129 kagabac@anticorruption.or.ug
Foundation for Human Rights Initiative
+256 0414 510 263/ 510276 fhri@spacenet.com.ug
+256 0752810079/+256 0775 527 521 swokulir@yahoo.com
/ hrnjuganda@yahoo.com
Human Rights Network for Journalists
NUDIPU
DEFORA
MS-Uganda
+256 0772647648
Kyozira2000@yahoo.com
+256 0782 484901 deforaa@yahoo.com
+256 0414 532 592 jbmsuga@ms.or.ug
/ nudipu@starcom.co.ug
139

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Uwamwezi Christine
Lamwaka Sharon
Ms. Nalunkuuma Rita
Ms Nakiganda Ida
Mr. John Bosco Mayiga
Prof. Edward Kakonge
Mr. Misanvu Faustine
Mrs. Ruth C Masika
Richard Mugisha
Tumusiime Peace
Ms. Kansiime Doreen
140
Kituo Cha Katiba-Uganda +2560414533295/+256 0772605800
Engamba@kituachakatiba.Org
+256 0772335445 ACTV-Uganda
Uganda Media Women’s Association actv@actvuganda.org
+256 0772636941/+256 0414 595 125 gnantalaga@yahoo.com
/ umwa@umwamamafm.co.ug
Uganda Human Rights Commission +256 0752617769/+256 0414 348 007/ 0414 232 190 uhrc@uhrc.ug
Uganda Media Development Foundation +256 0772 507 820/+256 0414 532 083/ 532 562
,
Uganda Debt Network
Umdf.mayiga@gmail.com
+256 0772 605 124/+256414 543974/0414 534856 info@udn.org.ug
+256 0774929275
Jengo Productions
NAWOU-Uganda
MISANVUFJ@YAHOO.COM
+256 0752 649134 /+256 0414 258 463/345 293 rumasika@hotmail.com
Open Society Initiative-Uganda +256 0714 252 704 rmugisha@osi.org
peacetum@yahoo.com
Legal Aid Clinic
DENIVA
+256 0752816160 dka@deniva.or.ug
/ info@deniva.or.ug
1
HURINET-U STAFF
Mr. Mohammed Ndifuna National Coordinator
2
3
4
Mr. Patrick Tumwine
Mr. Thomas Kamusiime
Mr. Micheal Kasozi
Advocacy, Research and
Information Officer
Capacity building and
Networking Officer
Accountant
+256 0414 285 362/+256 0772 419 229 executive@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0772 315 896 advocacy@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0712 556 623 capacity@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0772 466 499

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ms. Jennifer Aloyo
Ms Maureen Mboizi
Ms. Zam Nalwoga
Ms. Betty Male
Mr. Magoola Moses
Ms. Joan Asiimwe
John Waako
Magdalene Kateule Chitupila
Administrative Secretary
Communication and
Documentation Assistant
Administrative Assistant
Research and Documentation
Assistant
Project Assistant
Conference Assistant accounts@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0712 370 094 admin@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0782 324 398 documentation@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0414 285 362 nalwogazam@yahoo.com
/ info@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0712 746 119 bttymale@gmail.com
+256 0752 804 675 peace@hurinet.or.ug
+256 0752 444 343 jmutooro06@yahoo.com
Driver
FK Exchange Fellow
+256 0782 492 412 waakojohn@yahoo.com
+256 0775638523 kateulec@yahoo.com
141