Fisheries fails transparency test
While fisheries came out on the bottom, Misa's research indicates an overall improvement in performance in the region.
Namibia's ministry of fisheries and marine resources has earned the title of most secretive government agency out of eight tested, winning the 2018 Golden Padlock award during this year's regional transparency assessment.
In contrast, the National Assembly was awarded the 2018 Golden Key award for its high level of openness for its well-organised and transparent public interactions.
It outperformed last year's top agency, the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (Cran), with 12 points.
The National Assembly's website contained “relatively useful content and is updated regularly. The public relations officer at the National Assembly was helpful and friendly; he even called the researcher to ensure that the information provided was accurate and sufficient,” the analysis contained in the just published 10th transparency assessment report by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) states.
The justice ministry, which last year earned the title of most secretive and non-transparent government agency, with a score of 2 out of 40, improved with 27 points this year.
Misa Namibia said the improvement in scores, and the dip in scores from other institutions that performed better in 2017, highlighted “the fact that a citizen's experience with a public institutions can differ, depending on various factors, and that an institution can improve its performance once it is held accountable.”
Nevertheless, overall, the Misa report of seven southern African countries found that there has been a “definite improvement in the performance” of Namibia's public institutions concerning the provision of access to information to citizens.
This, the researchers said, was evidenced by the quality and efficiency of their websites and the level of their social media interaction, compared to previous years.
Still, the long delay by the government in passing a law on access to information, which has been gathering dust for some time, should be speeded up to ensure the country continues to improve in terms of access to information.
The report warns that this delay to table the Access to Information Bill in Namibia has increasingly made it difficult “to believe the government's public commitment to legislating the right to access of information, because it persistently fails to do so”.
Bad
The fisheries ministry's dismal scores in the two categories tested, how they responded to requests for information, and its online presence, were highlighted as particularly concerning, especially with the publishing of new fishing rights applications.
Its refusal to respond to a request for information earned it the lowest score of two out of 20 in the category.
According to Misa's score descriptions, this displays the denial of access to reasonable information requested, or that the ministry acted with high levels of secrecy.
In the second category analysing the ministry's online presence and availability of reasonable public information, the ministry scored nine out of 20, a score the analysis states indicates an “average website containing some information”.
The National Assembly scored 100% in the request for information category, and 13 out of 20 in the website category.
The research, conducted between July and September this year, scored Malawi 100% by all institutions tested in their willingness to respond to requests for information transparently and within a set period of time. This was a first for the country.
Namibia scored second highest, with a 63% response rate.
All other countries, including Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, had a less than 50% response rate to information requests.
This year, Namibia lost its top spot as the freest press in Africa, moving to second place in the 2018 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index.
The tumble to second place was in large part linked to the delay in passing the Access to Information Bill.
JANA-MARI SMITH
In contrast, the National Assembly was awarded the 2018 Golden Key award for its high level of openness for its well-organised and transparent public interactions.
It outperformed last year's top agency, the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (Cran), with 12 points.
The National Assembly's website contained “relatively useful content and is updated regularly. The public relations officer at the National Assembly was helpful and friendly; he even called the researcher to ensure that the information provided was accurate and sufficient,” the analysis contained in the just published 10th transparency assessment report by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) states.
The justice ministry, which last year earned the title of most secretive and non-transparent government agency, with a score of 2 out of 40, improved with 27 points this year.
Misa Namibia said the improvement in scores, and the dip in scores from other institutions that performed better in 2017, highlighted “the fact that a citizen's experience with a public institutions can differ, depending on various factors, and that an institution can improve its performance once it is held accountable.”
Nevertheless, overall, the Misa report of seven southern African countries found that there has been a “definite improvement in the performance” of Namibia's public institutions concerning the provision of access to information to citizens.
This, the researchers said, was evidenced by the quality and efficiency of their websites and the level of their social media interaction, compared to previous years.
Still, the long delay by the government in passing a law on access to information, which has been gathering dust for some time, should be speeded up to ensure the country continues to improve in terms of access to information.
The report warns that this delay to table the Access to Information Bill in Namibia has increasingly made it difficult “to believe the government's public commitment to legislating the right to access of information, because it persistently fails to do so”.
Bad
The fisheries ministry's dismal scores in the two categories tested, how they responded to requests for information, and its online presence, were highlighted as particularly concerning, especially with the publishing of new fishing rights applications.
Its refusal to respond to a request for information earned it the lowest score of two out of 20 in the category.
According to Misa's score descriptions, this displays the denial of access to reasonable information requested, or that the ministry acted with high levels of secrecy.
In the second category analysing the ministry's online presence and availability of reasonable public information, the ministry scored nine out of 20, a score the analysis states indicates an “average website containing some information”.
The National Assembly scored 100% in the request for information category, and 13 out of 20 in the website category.
The research, conducted between July and September this year, scored Malawi 100% by all institutions tested in their willingness to respond to requests for information transparently and within a set period of time. This was a first for the country.
Namibia scored second highest, with a 63% response rate.
All other countries, including Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, had a less than 50% response rate to information requests.
This year, Namibia lost its top spot as the freest press in Africa, moving to second place in the 2018 Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index.
The tumble to second place was in large part linked to the delay in passing the Access to Information Bill.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article