MALAWI ECONOMIC JUSTICE NETWORK ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUESTS PILOT PROJECT (ATI- RPP) PROJECT REPORT

REPORT SUBMITTED TO:

Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) 3rd August 2007 (See detailed financial statement attached)

DATE OF SUBMISSION: FUNDING DETAILS:

CONTENTS Page 1.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................ 4 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 5 3.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 7 4.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 7 5.0 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 7 5.1 Request areas ............................................................................................................ 8 5.2 Requests format ........................................................................................................ 8 5.3 Making requests ........................................................................................................ 9 5.4 Administering research Instrument........................................................................... 9 6.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ....................................................................... 10 Table 1: Score sheet: Criteria for Scoring on Percentage Scale: .................................. 11 6.1 Information on the status of the draft Access to Information Bill .......................... 11 6.1.1 Ministry of Information and Civic Education.................................................. 12 6.1.2 Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs................................................. 13 6.1.3 National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) ................................ 14 6.1.4 Graphical representation .................................................................................. 15 6.2 Information on the 2006/2007 National Budget ..................................................... 15 6.2.1 (i) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Capital Hill ...................... 16 6.2.1 (ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Mzuzu............................. 16 6.2.1 (ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Salima............................. 17 6.2.2 The National Youth Council of Malawi (NYCOM)........................................ 18 6.2.3 The Law Commission of Malawi .................................................................... 19 6.2.4 The Ministry of Defence.................................................................................. 20 6.2.5 (i) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare Headquarters ............... 21 6.2.5 (ii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Mzimba....................... 21 6.2.5 (iii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Salima ........................ 22 6.2.5 (iv) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Balaka ........................ 23 6.2.6 Ministry Of Health and Population.................................................................. 23 6.2.7 Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning ........................................................ 24 6.2.8 Ministry of Finance.......................................................................................... 25 6.2.9 Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture ............................................................ 26 6.2.10 National Audit Office (NAO) ........................................................................ 26 6.2.11 (i) Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs .......................................... 27 6.2.11 (ii) The Judiciary - Mzimba ........................................................................... 29 6.2.12 Catholic Justice Commission and Peace........................................................ 29 6.2.13 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development ............................................. 30 6.2.14 Office of the Ombudsman.............................................................................. 30 6.2.14 Poverty Reduction and Disaster Preparedness............................................... 31 6.2.15 Office of the Accountant General .................................................................. 31 6.2.15 Ministry of Persons with Disabilities and the Elderly ................................... 32 6.2.16 Council for Non Governmental Organisations in Malawi (CONGOMA)..... 33

6.2.17 Anti Corruption Bureau ................................................................................. 34 6.2.18 Malawi Human Rights Commission.............................................................. 35 6.2.19 Civil Service Commission ............................................................................. 35 6.2.20 National Roads Authority .............................................................................. 36 6.2.21 Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development ............................... 36 6.2.22 Salima Town Assembly ................................................................................. 37 6.2.23 Balaka District Assembly .............................................................................. 38 Table 2: Summary of responses provided in this category: .......................................... 40 6.3 Information on the Status of Current Privatisation of State Enterprises................. 45 6.3.1 Privatisation Commission of Malawi............................................................... 45 6.3.2 Bakresa Grain and Milling............................................................................... 46 6.3.3 New Capital Diary Co. Ltd (2007) .................................................................. 47 6.3.4 Lilongwe Water Board..................................................................................... 47 6.3.5 Graphical representation .................................................................................. 48 6.4 Information on Food Security and Goal Number one of the MDGs ...................... 49 6.4.2 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security...................................................... 49 6.4.2 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development ............................................... 49 6.4.3 OXFAM ........................................................................................................... 50 6.4.4 Small Holder Farmers Fertilizer Fund (SFFRF).............................................. 51 6.4.5 Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET).............................................. 52 Table 3: Summary of responses provided in this category: .......................................... 53 6.5 Information on the National Forestry Programme.................................................. 54 6.5.1 Department of Forestry Salima District........................................................ 54 6.5.2 Department of Forestry Balaka District........................................................ 55 6.5.3 Department of Forestry Mzimba District...................................................... 56 6.5.4 Graphical representation .................................................................................. 57 7.0 PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS.................................................................................... 58 8.0 CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................... 58 9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 59 ANNEX 1: SAMPLE REQUEST LETTERS.................................................................. 60 ANNEX 2: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................................... 64

1.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to sincerely thank the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) for their grant support provided to Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) through the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) in South Africa, which enabled us conduct this research dubbed the Access to Information Requests Pilot Project, a regional project implemented in five of the Southern African countries, namely Malawi, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and Mozambique. We also would like to express our appreciation to the research study coordinator, George Kayange, who patiently spent days of long hours entering data, analysing writing the report, and the entire research team of data collectors comprising following interns: Mr. Promise Kamanga, Mr. Mark Ndipita, Mr. Jacob Mazalale, Noel Kaponya, Miss Loyce Mtuwa and Miss Winsome Chalanda. Mr. and the Mr.

Special thanks to the Executive Director of MEJN, Mr Andrew Kumbatira, and his dedicated staff for their moral, material and advisory support throughout the project. Our thanks are also extended to all the respondents in Mzuzu, Mzimba, Lilongwe, Salima, Balaka and Blantyre who provided data through interviews. Last, but not least, to all those who, in one way or another, contributed towards making the survey a reality

2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This short-term survey helped to confirm some of the widely held perceptions and fears regarding the increasing unwillingness by public authorities to provide information to the public and to other stakeholders especially information needed for the exercise of their human rights a situation that necessitated a campaign, which was initiated by the National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) some four years ago, to enact the Access to Information Bill. At the start of this project in May 2007, the Bill was still in draft form and had not yet been presented to the Cabinet. Most importantly, besides confirming the already prevailing perceptions, it also uncovered new insights surrounding the whole debate on why certain public officials find it difficult to provide information; identification of gaps and challenges that civil society organisations like the Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) may face in accessing information from these public institutions; and, of course, why such gaps exist. It was found that there were a number of reasons why some public authorities were unwilling to provide information, ranging from attitude to lack of preparedness to do so. One of the reasons, for example, some public authorities showed resistance or unwillingness in providing information during the survey was the fear that the information might appear in the newspapers or radios. It was clear that the respondents did not have trust in the news media in the sense that the media would misrepresent certain facts to the detriment of the respondent if such information had found its way into the media. Examples where such pronouncements were made include the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Ministry of Persons with Disability and the office of the Accountant General. Another factor was to do with the perceived lack of transparency, especially on the part of civil society organisations. According to the District Commissioner for Balaka, civil society tend to report their findings to donors only, and not to the people or communities they serve. Whenever these NGOs make requests on various issues, the respondents are never sure how the information they provide to them is going to be used. They never get to see the report (i.e. to see their input). Furthermore, speculation that such information is used in research papers presented at international conferences without acknowledging their names also heightens an attitude of suspicion towards providing information to civil society organisations that are seeking information, especially those that are based in urban centres like Lilongwe and Blantyre, according to the District Social Welfare Officer of Balaka. This explains why information sought from his office during this particular survey was granted only after assuring him that MEJN would share the findings of the survey with all of its respondents accordingly. Other factors contributing to low levels of willingness also included the bureaucratic structure of some government departments and public institutions; and lack of basic resources, such as computers, which resulted in poor record keeping as was observed in most government departments, mainly at district level.

On the other hand, it was pleasing to note, ironically though, that government departments at district level faired relatively better than at central level. At central level, it was observed that there was quite a high level of bureaucracy which was principally why information took a long time before it was finally provided, if at all it was provided. And such high levels of bureaucracy also bred unnecessary fear and suspicion (i.e. fear from reprisals, and suspicion from being published in the newspapers). For example, when requesting for information on budget, it took one month for the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs at Capitol Hill (Headquarters) in Lilongwe to respond to all the questions on our questionnaire, whereas in Mzimba and Salima the questionnaire was answered straight away without having to book for an appointment. At the headquarters, 11 follow-ups were made as the questionnaire was being referred from one department to another including the Accounts, Planning, and Legal department before it was fully answered. Similarly, the Ministry of Gender and Child Welfare in Lilongwe completely failed to respond to our questionnaire on budget review, whereas it was much easier to access the same information at district level from the same ministry in Salima, Balaka and Mzimba. They all fully responded to our questionnaires. In Mzimba, on top of responding to the questionnaire, the District Social Welfare Officer shared with us hard copy of expenditure when asked to do so, while in Salima and Balaka the officials could not give us such documentation despite showing great interest/willingness to do so because the documentation was not yet available. The fore-going trend could in another context, however, be said to be a positive element or step in the decentralisation process in Malawi, considering that in an ideal world, decentralisation should not only entail the structural devolution of government systems, powers and institutions, but must also encompass decentralisation of information flow within these structures. In conclusion, what this survey failed to do, however, is to measure the levels of willingness by public authorities in providing information in comparison to any past existing data, taking into account that this is the very first empirical research ever conducted since the campaign on the enactment of the Information Bill began four years ago. In other words, it was very difficult to measure whether there has been improvement or deterioration in the past four or so years as regards the willingness by public authorities to provide information in the absence of such data. Nonetheless, this survey, albeit on a small-scale, will provide baseline data on which to form a basis for future surveys or projects of similar nature to make sound judgements and appropriate comparisons, both quantitative and qualitative. Most significantly, the findings of the survey will also help guide other stakeholders involved in the campaign for the enactment of the Access to Information Bill to further enrich their campaign strategies and approaches taking into consideration the gaps, challenges and general issues that have been identified in this pilot project.

3.0 INTRODUCTION The Access to Information Requests Pilot Regional Project was initiated following a consultative seminar held in March 2007 in Lilongwe at which the Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN), which is coordinating requests in Malawi, mobilised other civil society organisations to identify specific/priority areas or issues where requests need to be placed. These specific areas comprised the following: Budget monitoring and tracking Information on the status of the draft Freedom of Information Bill Information on the national forest programme Information on the status of current privatisation process of state enterprises Information on the sale of Malawi maize reserves Information on the Millennium Development Goals

Looking at the project timeframe, the last two areas of requests were later merged, with the latter focusing mainly on Goal number one alone instead of all the eights goals which centres on poverty and hunger. Having identified the above areas of requests, Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI), an organisation which is coordinating the project at the regional level with funding from Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA), made the financial resources available to MEJN to pilot access to information requests on public bodies and agencies that were identified as holders of the above information. The implementation of the twothree month project began on 22 May 2007, although it went fully-fledged on 7 June 2007 after the funds were finally transferred. It had tentatively been planned to be concluded by 15 July 2007. 4.0 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The project sought to achieve the following goals and objectives: 1. The overall goal was to assess the willingness of public authorities in providing access to information despite the dearth of a legislative framework providing for access to information in Malawi. 2. To assess the feasibility and capacity needs of access to information the civil society may face with a view to determining whether they can independently undertake information requests after the pilot phase. 3. To generate resources and create an information hub that would later point to the need for information on the advancement of socio- economic justice and the attendant responses of public and private bodies 5.0 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

In order to conduct a study of this nature, it was necessary and imperative to utilise both the quantitative and the qualitative approaches in the designing of the data collecting tools, techniques of data collecting as well as in the analysis of the data. The first tasks involved budgeting and the selection of the target sites (or request areas), then scheduling of activities and lastly organising orientation for the data collectors.

5.1 Request areas

The project began with a preparatory process in mid-May whereby a budget and project activities/schedule was drawn spanning between mid-May and mid-July. However, it was observed that the number of holders of information where information was to be placed was way above what was identified during the seminar. For example, the holders of Information on the Budget Monitoring alone could reach 30 i.e. all government departments, plus institutions that receive subvention from Government, as well as district assemblies where necessary. These were overlooked during the consultative seminar. As regards Information on the Status of Privatisation of State Enterprises, there was also need to approach over ten privatised companies besides the Privatisation Commission of Malawi itself. Then followed the request area on Information on the Sale of Maize Reserves. It was felt during the preparatory process of the project that this category should be merged with Information on Goals Set by the Millennium Development Goals. The latter would, therefore, focus on Goal number one alone (instead of all the eights goals), which centres on poverty and hunger. Thus the project would now tackle issues related to food security in relation to the sale of maize reserves where already over ten holders of such information would be approached. If the project was to focus on all the eight goals of the MDGs, it meant it would approach well over 60 holders of information which would not be feasible within the projects proposed time-frame of two-three months.

5.2 Requests format

In order to systematically and effectively achieve the projects overall objective of assessing the willingness of public authorities in providing public information, a special form was designed during the preparatory phase which, among other things, indicated the day and time each appointment was done for each request made; the day and time of the first visit; the information/record sought; the summary of response given; and the details of response given. Indicating day and time on the booking of each appointment helped to serve as an important indicator during data analysis in determining the level of willingness of the public authorities, since reasons were to be given as to why, for example, an appointment was being rescheduled (i.e. were they convincing reasons or not, how were such said to be linked to the respondents attitudes, and how many times an appointment was made, etc).

Similarly, another important part of the form was the summary of the response, which indicated whether information given was full, partial or none. The data collector was required to tick on any of the three indicators, and a space was given on the form to explain why the record/information given was partial, or why no record/information was given at all. Data collectors were also encouraged to make general observations during the request process which could also help to determine, during data analysis, the levels of willingness of information holders to provide information.

5.3 Making requests

The process of making requests began with the booking of an appointment which was accompanied by a formal letter of request. In the case of budget monitoring, for example, all letters of requests were directed to the Principal Secretary (PS) of each ministry, and heads of other relevant government institutions. The letter was followed by a phone call either with the secretary of the PS or directly to the PS himself/herself, in order to book an appointment. Sometimes the appointment was booked in person when delivering the letter. The PS was being targeted by the letter only as a matter of protocol, but during appointment the emphasis was on visiting whoever had the information being requested within the ministry so that the PS could delegate wherever necessary. The same approach was also employed with the other institutions as regards the other areas of requests. In the letter, the kind of record/information being sought was mentioned in the heading. The name of the organisation seeking the information, in this case MEJN, and a brief description of what it does was mentioned in the body, while its full contact details were contained in the letterhead. The letter also clearly stated in its body that the request was made under a constitutional provision on freedom of information and access to information in Section 37, which stipulates, Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights. The letter concluded by stating the purpose for which the record/information was sought, for example, in the case of Requests for information on Budget allocation and expenditure, the main reason given was that the information sought would help MEJN to monitor the performance in the implementation of the resources allocated to the targeted ministry/institution during the period under review.

5.4 Administering research Instrument

Questionnaires were developed for almost all the requests that were made during the survey. As such, a total of 56 questionnaires were developed and administered. The questionnaire was being used in this project as the main research instrument, except in the second category on Information on the status of the draft Freedom of Information Bill, where the information sought was somewhat straightforward. It was for that reason why we had to kick-start the project with this category on 22 May, as it did not require much preparation and did not have significant cost-implications taking into consideration that only three holders of information were actually consulted. 6.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Over 50 institutions had been approached for request of information on four request areas or categories as highlighted above. In all the request areas, score sheets were designed to score points in assessing the levels of willingness and/or readiness to provide information by respondents. In two of the request areas, namely, Information on National Budget 2006/2007, and Information on Food Security and Goal Number one of the MGDs, the score sheet measures levels of willingness using variables listed below, on average, marked in percentage. 1. Appointment: i.e. how long it took the questionnaire to be answered or interview to be granted. The longer the period, the lower the level of willingness on the percentage scale. 2. Response given: i.e. whether the response given was given fully, partially or none at all 3. Bureaucracy: i.e. how many officials was the questionnaire/interviewer referred to before release of information? The higher the number of officials, the lower the level of willingness on the percentage scale. 4. Suspicion: i.e. in the opinion of the researcher, to what extent did the respondents perceived suspicion affect the amount of response given if at all it was given and the level of willingness/readiness to provide information. The lower the level of suspicion, the higher the level of willingness on the percentage scale. 5. Fear: i.e. in the opinion of the researcher, to what extent did the perceived fear affect the amount of response given if at all it was given and the level of willingness/readiness to provide information. The lower the level of suspicion, the higher the level of willingness on the percentage scale. The AVERAGE SCORE on the score sheet was determined by adding all the variables/indicators, and divide the sum by 5.

10

In three of the categories, namely Information of the status of Access to Information Bill, Information on the Status of the Privatisation Process and Information on the National Forestry Programme, a simple scale o 1-5 (with 5 being the highest) represented by a graph was used to determine the levels of willingness, which took into consideration the same variables/indicators highlighted above. A simple graph was preferred because there were fewer respondents in these two categories (i.e. less than five in each). Table 1: Score sheet: Criteria for Scoring on Percentage Scale: 0-3 days 100% 4-7 days 90% 8-10 days 80% Partial 35-70%
Medium

VARIABLE/INDICATOR

11-14 days 70% None 0-35% Low 0-35% Low 0-35% Low 0-35%

15-30 days 50%

30-60 days 0-50%

Appointment Variable/Indicator Response/record given Variable/Indicator Bureaucracy Variable/Indicator Suspicion Variable/Indicator Fear AVERAGE SCORE

Full 70-100% High 80-100% High 70-100% High 70-100%

35-80%
Medium

35-70%
Medium

35-70%

= apptment + resp + bucracy + susp + fear 5

Note, however, that where information was NOT provided at all due to reasons associated with one of the variables/indicators above, the other indicators/variables became automatically irrelevant, and the score awarded was zero, except in exceptional cases where, for instance, the seeker of information, or data collector in this case, was deemed to have contributed to the failure to provide information.

6.1 Information on the status of the draft Access to Information Bill

The holders of information identified in this category were the Ministry of Information and Civic Education; the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA).

11

6.1.1 Ministry of Information and Civic Education On 23 May 2007, at 3:35 p.m., Mr Beaton Munthali, Principal Secretary of the ministry, was directly consulted by telephone after a letter was dispatched to him the previous day, in the morning of 22 May, requesting for information on the status of the Access to Information Bill. The purpose of the call was to officially book an appointment, but the respondent showed he was willing to give us the information straight away. The ministry was still in the process of developing a Cabinet paper (as of the day request was being placed). The process of developing the Cabinet paper started last year. When asked why it was taking too long to finalize the cabinet paper, he said that the paper had to reflect all the consultations that had taken place so far, including the recent ones. He, however, promised to get back to us the following week to give us an updated feedback, having estimated that by that time the Cabinet paper would be through, as all consultations would have been reflected in the paper. He advised us to check again with Mr. Bob Chilemba, the Acting Director of Information, who was specifically responsible for developing the Cabinet paper. Judging by the response given, it was evident, however, that the ministry had relaxed in its process of pushing for the Bill until this particular interview was done, as the process of writing a Cabinet paper started way back last year. The following week, on 30 May, at around 10:30 a.m., we consulted Mr. Chilemba in person as earlier advised. We did not have to book an appointment, as he was also very willing to provide information at once. He indicated that the cabinet paper was still being developed, and would be ready by the end of the week, on Friday. He said the paper would be presented to the Minister of Information and Civic Education before it could be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs within two to three weeks. He also hinted that other stakeholders like NAMISA and Human Rights Resource Centre (MHRRC) had sought audience with the minister the previous week who had demonstrated willingness to have the Bill enacted the soonest possible. Scoring: On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the highest), the level of willingness to provide information on this matter had been pegged on 5. The institution had been awarded this point on the following basis: (a) No appointment was granted, as both officers were willing to provide whatever information they had at the time they were being first approached. (b) All questions were answered during the interaction. There was no incidence where the respondent had to either dodge a question or plead for more time to research on it.

12

6.1.2 Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs A request letter, addressed to the Principal Secretary, was also dispatched to the ministry on the same day as the Ministry of Information and Civic Education. A follow-up telephone call was made in the afternoon at almost the same time as the one to Ministry of Information was made. No appointment was granted as the PS was said to be in a meeting, and her secretary, who answered the call, promised to get back to us later in the day. Despite the secretary persistently promising to get back to us on a number of occasions, it was us who continually made follow up calls to book an appointment. Eight phone calls were made between 23 May to 8 June, but on all the occasions, no appointment was booked, as the PS was said to be engaged with other commitments such as meetings and conferences. Finally, the response was, however, given through a letter written on 12 June 2007 that was in response to the one we wrote on 22 May when making the request. So far, this kind of response, in form of a letter, was the first since the project started. The letter (see attached), signed by the Chief Parliamentary Draftsperson, Mrs. Gertrude Hiwa, on behalf of the PS and Solicitor General, and copied to the PS of the Ministry of Information and Civic Education, said the ministry was aware that there was a draft Access to Information Bill, and that some of its officers even attended some workshops organised by civil society organisations on the same. But the letter said the ministry had not been given any instructions (or mandate) with respect to the Access to Information Bill, saying it was therefore not able to give any update on the same. The letter also suggested that the line ministry of information was better placed to provide such an update. In other ways, by interpretation, had the Ministry of Information finished the Cabinet paper and accordingly submitted it to the Justice ministry with clear instructions, the Parliamentary draftsman would have been in a position to provide us with some useful information, although that does not necessarily mean that the information given by the Justice ministry was insufficient. We were only interested to find out at what level was the process of drafting and enacting the Bill. Scoring: The level of willingness to provide information on this matter had been marked at 3. The institution had been awarded this point on the following basis. (a) Between 23 May and 8 June, no appointment was granted, as the Parliamentary Draftsperson who was also acting PS was said to be engaged with other commitments. In that case, it was difficult to say whether the appointment we

13

were trying to book was of lesser priority than the other commitments she had or that she really had a tight schedule to talk to us. (b) On the other hand, although we could not provide her with the questionnaire, she however managed to give a response based on the request highlighted in our letter. Perhaps she had preferred to respond by way of a three-paragraphed letter because there was nothing really to update us on since the ministry did not yet have any instructions from anybody, so probably in her opinion it would not have made a difference even if she gave us the information through face-to-face interaction. (c) In any case, however, the 3 point had been given mainly taking into account that it took quite a long time for the response to be given. But at least a response was given. 6.1.3 National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA) Mr. Innocent Chitosi, the National Director of NAMISA an organisation that initiated and had led civil society in a campaign for the enactment of the Bill said he was not in the office when contacted by telephone on 25 May 2007 at around 2:45 p.m. He indicated he would be in the office the following week. The Advocacy Officer of NAMISA had therefore been delegated to talk to us. When contacted by phone after two minutes, the officer, however, indicated he was not well conversant with the progress made so far because he was relatively new at the institution, and that the responsible officer who used to handle the project was no longer working with institution. He alleged the officer had not properly handed over the project notes to him. Having first spoken to the Acting Director of Information the following week, it was no longer necessary to make a follow up with NAMISA since the information given by the information ministry was sufficient to determine the status of the Bill. The only stakeholder that was relevant at this point was the Ministry of Justice which needed to give its side of story though. Scoring: The level of willingness to provide information on this matter had been pegged at 2. The institution had been awarded this point on the following basis: (a) Like the PS for the Information ministry did, the National Director of NAMISA could also have provided information on the status of the Bill on the phone at least summarily. In fact, judging by the information provided by the ministry, one would question whether indeed it could have taken more than five minutes or even two just to explain the status of the Bill from the point of view of NAMISA.

14

(b) As a general observation, there was need for more capacity at NAMISA, as the officer whom Mr Chitosi had delegated did not have any information on the same. It could be capacity building in terms of staffing levels, as the officer may not have been oriented in time because the institution might have had a number of other pressing programmes running on the ground, thereby affecting the readiness to provide relevant information. For instance, the Advocacy Officer did not make any attempt whatsoever to make follow ups with the said officer on issues he did not have adequate information on, despite the latter having left handover notes accordingly.

6.1.4 Graphical representation

5 4 3 2 1 0 Levels of willingness Min of Justice Min of Info NAMISA

6.2 Information on the 2006/2007 National Budget

In this category, our primary target was government ministries, departments and other government institutions at both central and district levels. The aim was to assess the levels of willingness/readiness to provide information at both these levels and make comparisons between the two. The subject matter was information on the national budget for the fiscal year 2006/2007 which expired in June. Questionnaires were used as our research instrument whose questions, among other things, focused on the amount of budget allocations to each department or institution consulted; how much they each requested; how much they actually spent; whether they experienced deficit or surplus; and the challenges they encountered during the period under review. It is, however, pertinent to state that the information on budget that we were requesting was neither meant to be so detailed nor complex, with respect to the fact that the project had other key goals and objectives to

15

achieve within the period of two-three months, as highlighted above, rather than to necessarily undertake a detailed post-budget analysis. We also needed to ascertain public perceptions especially those advanced by civil society lobbyists/campaigners for the enactment of the Information Bill that seem to hold government officials as main culprits when it comes to lack of willingness and/or readiness to provide information. So we also targeted some key civil society organisations in selected sectors like health, good governance, education and agriculture. 6.2.1 (i) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Capital Hill The Acting Director for the Ministry of Information and Civic Education, Mr. Bob Chilemba, was contacted on 12 June 2007 and provided us with information on budget without delay, and without having to book an appointment, as follows: The ministry mainly disseminates information (about the budget) especially about the process itself, the impact of the budget on the economy and it also receives feedback from the general public to the government. These activities are done through the information department, Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) and Malawi Television (TVM) and also through press releases. As a cost centre, a budget of K150 million and K50 million for ORT and Development allocations respectively was proposed for the financial year 2006/2007. However, the amounts approved (by Parliament) were K50 million and K10 million for ORT and Development purposes respectively. The result of this had been that some activities had been delayed most importantly the operationalisation of the campaign for the enactment of the Access to Information Bill. There has also been no capital formation that is office equipment, cars and many more. Scoring The respondent was very willing to give information without delay or having to book an appointment. On the percentage scale, the respondent scored 100 percent. 6.2.1 (ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Mzuzu The Regional Information officer for the North, Mr. Edson Mwamvani, was contacted on 20 July 2007 and was willing to provide information without delay and without having to book an appointment, as follows:

16

K3.9 Million was allocated to the ministry of Information and Civic Education for the whole of the Northern Region, to be shared among all the seven districts (including the regional office in Mzuzu) during the period under review. The budget allocation was not enough as some of the goals that were set to be achieved were not achieved because of the amount of funding that was made available. There were, however, a surplus in other budget line items and a deficit in the others. For example, a surplus of K60, 000.00 meant for the leave grants was returned to treasury which could help in other pressing areas. The money could not be diverted to other areas because of the system that Government had imposed on its departments which provides a ceiling on the allocations. The goals that the department had set to achieve included the following: (a) Improve communication in all the district offices (i.e. in the past, some District Information Officers (DIOs) could hardly send news stories to the Malawi News Agency (MANA) headquarters in Blantyre) (b) Rehabilitation of some district offices (c) Provision of necessary facilities in district office (e.g. furniture, etc) Out of the above goals set, only one was achieved. This was the rehabilitation of offices in Rumphi and Nkhata-Bay. Scoring There was total willingness from the Regional Information office to provide the data collector with information, as the questionnaire was answered both fully and in time. The institution was awarded 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.1 (ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Salima The District Information Officer for Salima, Mr. Frank Nkondetseni, was interviewed at his office on 13th July 2007 without delay and having to book an appointment. He responded to the questionnaire as follows: The District Information Office did not submit a budget per se to treasury as, according to him, the system was centralised. The ministry headquarters and the Regional office in Lilongwe did all the budgeting on their behalf basing on needs submitted by district offices from time to time. Some of the goals that the district office set out to achieve included: Visiting many places in the district to see what people in the district were doing in terms of development and write stories.

17

Organise film/video shows on various topical issues.

Out of the planned goals, what was achieved was the development of human interest news stories which were aired and published. Scoring The respondent also implored civil society organisations like MEJN to assist in making sure that government ministries such as Information and Civic Education should provide direct funding to its district offices. That would help to follow how the money was used besides enhancing efficiency. There was total willingness from the District Information office to provide the data collector with information, as the questionnaire was answered both fully and in time. The institution was awarded 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.2 The National Youth Council of Malawi (NYCOM) Alexander Mseka, the Executive Director of the National Youth Council of Malawi (NYCOM) was interviewed on15th June 2007 at around 3:00 p.m. NYCOM is an organization that deals with youth development activities. The Council run programmes such as youth participation, youth productive health, research and evaluation. The Council gets part of its funding from the government as a statutory corporation. In the 2006 /07 fiscal year, the council submitted to government a budget amounting to K34, 000,000. However, only K23, 000,000 was allocated. 95% of the total amount allocated to the council went to salaries management and governance and the remaining 5% was used for activities such as annual general meetings (AGMs) and payments for Regional Youth Coordinator. Much as the Council receives funds from the government, it relies much on donor funding to run most of its activities, for instance, when the council wants to conduct research the one responsible has to submit a proposal to some donors requesting for funds. Apart from the government, the Council also gets some funds from National Aids Commission (NAC), United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) and British Council. However, a greater percentage of the money the Council used came from the donors rather than the government. For example, in 2006 / 07 financial year, the council received K87 million from NAC, K6 million from UNICEF and K1 million plus 2 hundred computers from the British Council.

18

The Council was planning to introduce an entrepreneurship training and food security programme. After the interview the institution Executive Director said that he expected more than what was discussed. According to him, MEJN was supposed to spend more time with members of the Council discussing issues that concerns it. In addition, the Council expected that on its behalf, MEJN could lobby for more funds from the government to be invested in the activities of the Council. Scoring The respondent was very willing to give information. He even went to the extent of giving the researcher two mobile phone numbers in case the researcher needed more information. The institution was awarded 100 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.3 The Law Commission of Malawi The contact person for the Law Commission of Malawi (LCM) was the Law Commissioner himself, Mr. Anthony Kamanga, SC. The booking of the appointment was done on 13 June 2007 at 2:55 p.m. and the interview took place at the same time and date. MLC is one of the bodies set up by the Constitution of the Republic. It provides expert advice to government on law development and reform. MLC was allocated the total of K117, 750, 000 for 2006/07 fiscal year. K62, 250, 000 was for emoluments, K 25, 553, 000 for Constitutional Review and K 29, 947, 000 for other related activities (ORT). The MLC, like any other government entity, prepares a proposal based on the activities that they want to undertake in that fiscal year. However the Treasury usually cuts the budget in accordance with the budget ceiling. The MLC did not play a significant role in the implementation of the budget during he period under review except, according to the Law Commissioner, only monitoring if the government had released the money to their account. He further said that sometimes the government divert funds to other development projects but this is something they cannot query.

19

MLC had other alternative sources of funds apart from government subventions. These alternative sources include donors like Norway, Sweden and UNDP, just to mention a few. MLC relied more predominantly on donor assistance than on government funds. The Treasury had been sufficiently supporting the reviewing and reforming of laws than any other activities proposed by MLC. The challenges met by MLC due to insufficient allocation of funds were as follows: i) ii) iii) The institution was unable to implement programmes on gender laws and village courts It was unable to properly execute its training programme It was also difficult for MLC to procure equipment that would facilitate the efficient networking with its key stakeholders. For example, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs was planning to improve the management of criminal and civil cases through establishment of a computerized case tracking system between MLC and other case handling institutions.

Scoring The respondent was generally willing to give information although at first he seemed hesitant because, according to the Law Commissioner, the topic was technical i.e. he did not have financial background himself. The institution was given 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.4 The Ministry of Defence The first appointment with the Director of Planning for the Ministry of Defence was booked on 11 June 2007 through his secretary for the next day 12th June at 10: 00 am. The data collector availed himself at his offices in time, but when the Director of Planning heard the questions he seemed suspicious and he demanded for an identity of the data collector to show that he was coming from MEJN which did not have. The official insisted that he wanted to be confident in whom he was giving information to. He then referred the data collector to the registry after he was assured the data collector would bring the evidence later. He directed the secretary to book data collector an appointment with the Director of Finance but only after he had brought an introductory letter. In the afternoon of the same day, the data collector took the letter there and the secretary promised to call him as the Finance Director was locked in a meeting but she never did. The data collector went there again in the morning of Wednesday 13th June and the secretary then booked an appointment for Friday at 10: 00am with the Director of Finance.

20

The appointment was never fulfilled as the DOF was reported busy, and several follow ups were made to no avail. Scoring The general observation was that information at the ministry of Defence was not easily accessible. There was totally no willingness or readiness to provide information. The institution was allocated 0 percent 6.2.5 (i) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare Headquarters The under-secretary, a Mr. N Mwambakulu, was contacted on 12 June 2007 at 2:30 to book an appointment, after the request letter, which was hand-delivered the same day at 10:00 a.m. was referred to his office. She was, however, not willing (actually refused) to provide information on budget, citing the following reasons and factors: (a) Government information is classified, therefore, could not be publicised any how. (b) She feared that if MEJN would be provided with the information, it would divert the same to the media houses for critique, saying, My boss has said that you are the very same people who take lies to newspapers like The Nation Newspaper. (c) If MEJN wanted to information from the Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Development, then it should have first collected a permit letter from the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) which, according to the respondent, authorises government institutions to provide information. There was, therefore, no data to analyse. The institution scored 0 percent on the percentage scale in terms of levels of willingness and readiness to provide information. 6.2.5 (ii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Mzimba The District Social Welfare Officer, Mr. James Mwenechanya, was contacted on 19th July 2007 and was willing to provide information without delay and without having to book an appointment, as follows: The ministry devolved its functions at district level to the District Assembly. As such the budget that was prepared at district assembly level for the ministry was K10, 295, 330.00. This was not enough to implement its activities effectively. There is always very little ORT allocated to the department because of perception from treasury that the ministry already received a lot of funding from other donors like UNICEF and other cooperating partners. However, these donations are usually based on the quality of proposals that have been submitted to UNICEF and other partners

21

that year. What it means is that if there is no good proposal that has been submitted to UNICEF and other partners; it means the department would suffer drastically in terms of funding. The priority areas of expenditure for the financial year 2006/2007 included rentals, utility bills, fuel and vehicle maintenance. K23 million would normally be needed to run all social welfare service in the district. The respondent was willing to provide documentation on income and expenditure when asked to do so. He, however, provided the hard copy documentation for only January March (quarterly) since that was what was available. Scoring The respondent was willing to provide information, as besides answering all the questions on the questionnaire, he was able to provide extra documentation on budget expenditure. In this case, the ministry was allocated the maximum 100 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.5 (iii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Salima Mr Nickson Chawinga, the Social Welfare Officer, was contacted on 12th July 2007 at his office and granted us the interview without any delay and without having to book an appointment. He responded to our questionnaire as follows: K1, 916, 600.00/month was made available to the Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare in the 2006/2007 fiscal year at district level in Salima K27, 956, 000 was the amount that was actually budgeted for. The money allocated was not enough because it was only used for maintenance of vehicles, fuel, allowances for the staff, stationery, and other administrative issues, rather than in implementing programmes. The ministry, however, managed to source funding and other forms of support from other cooperating partners like UNICEF, MASAF, World Vision and Action Aid. The total amount from other sources was K25, 761, 050.90. K36, 870,900.00 would normally be needed to run all social welfare services in the district The respondent could not provide hard copy documentation on income and expenditure because it was the District Assembly that was keeping custody of the funds and different sectors were using the same account.

22

Scoring The respondent answered all the questions fully on the questionnaire although he could not produce the hard/soft copy documentation for the reasons explained above. The institution was allocated 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.5 (iv) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Balaka The assistant Social Welfare Assistant, Mr. Mac Donald Bwetule, was contacted on 17th July 2007 at his office in Balaka, and granted us an interview with some delay but without having to book an appointment. He was at first reluctant to provide information because he said he was not sure how MEJN was going to use the information and whether MEJN would make available the research report. After being assured that the report would be made available to the respondents, and explaining how we intended to use the information provided, the respondent than accepted to answer the questions as follows: K85, 911.00/month was the amount of money allocated to Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Development at district level. The money was distributed evenly between the ministrys two departments, namely, the Department of Community Development and the Department of Social welfare. The money was not enough because the ministry had a lot of activities that were not implemented because all the money went into administrative costs such utility bills, servicing of motor cycles, stationery, etc. There were no other sources of funding for the ministry in Balaka The ministry would normally need K100, 000.00 per month to run all social welfare services in the district. Scoring The respondent answered all the questions fully. He could, however, not provide the hard copy documentation on income and expenditure because it was with the Director of Finance at the District Assembly, as according to him, he was the one mandated to prepare such reports. The institution was awarded 95% 6.2.6 Ministry Of Health and Population The data collector first visited the Ministry of Health and Population on 11th June 2007 around 4 p.m. and the PSs secretary cooperatively told him that the PS was busy the

23

whole week and was in a meeting then. She promised to call the next day but she never did. He then followed up on the afternoon of the 12th June and she told him the PS had delegated the letter to the Director of Planning so the data collector was supposed to check the other day with her secretary for an appointment. The following Wednesday, 13th June, the secretary to the Director of Planning told the data collector she was going to call him by Friday the 15th June since by then the boss was in a meeting and she was not sure when he was going to be free. After June 15, several follow ups were made but to no avail. Scoring In summary, it was tough to access information from the Ministry of Health apparently due to bureaucracy. The level of willingness and readiness to provide information was therefore pegged at 0 percent. 6.2.7 Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning The Principal Secretary, Mr. Fletcher Zenengeya, of the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning was interviewed on 16 June 2007 at 9:00 a.m. following the booking of an appointment on 12 June 2007 at 15:30 p.m. He provided responses as follows: The ministry was given about K3 Billion during the just ending fiscal year. The allocation was not enough as most of it went to payment of rentals. Out of the budget allocation, the ministry spent about K100 million every month paying various property owners where government offices were rented throughout the country. This, according to the PS, negatively impacted on the activities of the ministry. Government was considering constructing its own buildings in order to save the much needed funds that were spent on rentals. K150 million in the 2006/07 budget was allocated specifically for the construction of the Parliament building in Lilongwe, a four-storey block at Capital Hill but nothing, according to the PS, was showing up, not even a single brick was there. The ministry was failing to collect revenue from local farmers as it did not have the capacity, an issue which was being discussed at central level meetings. Given the capacity in terms of human resources and vehicles, the ministry would have been one of the ministries with huge revenue collection. The PS provided a document that contained complete breakdown of expenditure.

24

Scoring The PS was willingness to provide information, as besides answering all the questions on the questionnaire, he was able to provide extra documentation on budget expenditure. In this case, the ministry was allocated the maximum 100 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.8 Ministry of Finance An Appointment was booked on 11 June 2007 at around 4:30 p.m. for a meeting with Principal Secretary. The interview was, however, accorded the following day, on 12 June 2007 at 2:00 p.m. with Principal Budget Officer, Mrs. Emma Mabvumbe. Questions were directed to the Ministry of Finance based on the 2006/07 national budget. The questionnaire requested information about: how much and hat the whole budget comprised; the criteria used in allocating money for different ministries; success in the implementation of the budget; the 50% cut for TVM and MBC in 2006/07 budget allocation; the K8 billion requested by the ministry in Parliament and the goals set by the ministry to be achieved by the end of the financial year; just to mention a few. According to the respondent, the 2006/07 budget comprised K170 million (approved) and K345 million (revised). When doing the allocations, the ministry was guided by the activities set by each ministry to be achieved by the end of the fiscal year. In addition, the K8 billion asked for in Parliament was meant for unbudgeted projects that came up, for instance; the construction of roads, boreholes, schools and new Parliament buildings, purchasing police vehicles and salaries for those in police and health training schools. On the goals set by the ministry to be achieved by end of the fiscal year, the respondent gave the researcher a 2006/07 output based document to find out for herself. The respondent did not give the researcher any information regarding the 50% cut for Malawi Television (TVM) and the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) in budget allocation saying that she was not there when Parliament was in process and thereafter, did not come across any data pertaining to this issue. Hence the researcher collected partial information. Scoring Though the introductory letter was addressed to the PS of the ministry, his/her secretary referred the researcher to the deputy budget director who further referred the researcher to the principal budget officer (PBO). The PBO was only willing to assist the researcher (answer questions) after being authorized by the DBD. However, the DBD reluctantly answered questions, for fear of how MEJN would interpret the collected data. In addition, he said that accessible

25

information was only that which the ministry had released and not that which was not officially released. Although there was a lot of reluctance and suspicion earlier, information was however provided in the end. In this case, the institution was given 60 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.9 Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture The data collector went to the Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture on Tuesday, 12th June 2007, and met the Principal Secretarys secretary who delegated him to the Director of Administration as the deputy secretary (currently in charge) was not in office. The DoA seemed cooperative at first in that he got the questions and went through the introductory letter. He then advised him to go there on Friday, 15th June at 2 p.m. to get answers. When the researcher went, the DoA was not ready to provide the responses and several follow-ups were made but to no avail, until the expiry of the project. Scoring The general observation was that the following were possible reasons why the request did not materialize at the Ministry of Sports: : Did not have readily available answers to inquiries regarding on budget. Fear Busy Personality. (i.e. if I were a VIP, I could possibly get information) Lack of confidence and/or credibility in the data collector as perceived by the respondent As such, the point awarded to this ministry was 0 percent due to the reasons above. 6.2.10 National Audit Office (NAO) The respondent gave the answers willingly. He was very transparent and accountable. He provided the responses as follows: The National Audit Office is an organization that promotes and enhances proper accountability of public resources. It effectively provides programmed audit services to ministries department, assemblies and other public bodies and timely reports to National Assembly. NAO was allocated the amount of K266, 816,621 million for 2006/07 fiscal year in which K59, 327,604 million was for emoluments, K78, 000,000 was for ORT and K129, 489,017 was for development account.

26

However, from the initial amount of funds approved by parliament NAO only received K206, 674,746.73 million. According to the Deputy Auditor General (DAG) funding can be reduced depending on the source envelope thus, revenue and donor funding. Due to insufficient allocation of funds the NAO had been facing a lot of challenges. Some of the challenges include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Shortage of qualified staff. Unable to produce annual audit reports in time. The delays by the Accountant General to produce and submit financial statements. Vacant post of the Auditor General who died in January 2006.

The NAO mostly dwells on the financial information and little on outputs and outcomes. Subsequently, the NAO has formulated a permanence unit audit which will help to trace the outcomes and outputs. Though the NAO provide audit services it is also audited by the private sector. The private audit sector is approved by the private sector committee Public Audit Act 28(1) to audit the financial statements of NAO which are later forwarded to the National Assembly. But due to insufficient funds NAO has been unable to engage a private audit sector to audit the NAO. Scoring The respondent was willing to provide as much information as he could within a short time. The institution was therefore allocated the maximum 100 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.11 (i) Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs The ministry was first contacted on15th June 2007 at 2:00 pm. After the first appointment scheduled for the same day at 2:25 failed, 11 follow ups were made until 12th July 2007 at 3:30 pm when the last follow up became successful. The budget submission for the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs during the period under review was as follows: Development: K211, 539, 000.00 ORT: K286, 011, 525.00 PE: K116, 275, 245.00 TOTAL: K613, 823, 770 The actual funding was as follows:

27

Development: K202, 000, 000 ORT: K285, 991,303 PE: K103, 526, 442 Out of the above allocation, the following was what had been spent: Development: K37, 000, 000.00 ORT: K283, 091, 227 PE: K103, 52q6, 442 TOTAL: K423, 617, 667 The money that was spent was, however, not enough. The ministry plays an important role in the proper implementation of the national budget in that provides sound legal advice to ministries/departments and the office of the Director of Public Procurements on legal aspects of the Public Finance Management Act. The Drafting Section of the ministry is normally allocated K12 million per annum which is far below the required sum to carry out all activities such as publishing Bills and reprinting the laws. As regards expenditure on prosecution of cases, one homicide case costs about K150, 000.00 K200, 000.00. Ordinary Criminal Case costs about K100, 000.00. However, the expenditure varies depending on the complex nature of the case. The drafting of legislation and legal instruments was a continuous process and is done on a daily basis. The ministry was planning to improve the management of criminal and civil cases through establishment of a computerized case tracking system. The ministry has sourced funding from EU Rule of Law Programme to design and create a database for criminal and civil case by December, 2007. The ministry promotes rule of law, justice, democracy, good governance, transparency and accountability through providing sound legal advice to the Government, prosecuting criminal offences timely, and preparing legislation and drafting case instruments timely and providing legal aid to people who cannot afford private cases representation. Scoring All the questions on the questionnaire were answered fully, as can be shown above. However, it took nearly a month for the questionnaire to be attended to after 11 follow ups were made. The questionnaire was assigned to specific departments like Accounts, Planning, and Legal department. This made the questionnaire to take one month before it was fully answered due to the bureaucratic nature of the system. In this case, the institution was allocated 40 percent on the score sheet.

28

6.2.11 (ii) The Judiciary - Mzimba The Magistrate Court Administrator in Mzimba provided information on budget for the fiscal year 2006/2007 without delay or having to book an appointment when we visited his office on 19th July 2007. The institution in Mzimba was not aware how much was the budget allocation at district level because all the finances were dealt with at the regional level. Because it was not consulted when the regional office prepared budget, the office in Mzimba therefore faced challenges which included the following: Outstanding utility bills Dilapidated state of some court buildings in the outskirts of Mzimba, some were actually inhabitable. Mobility problems, as there was no single vehicle in Mzimba for the office. Scoring The respondent was very wiling to provide information, as he answered all the questions fully as well as in time (i.e. the same time he was consulted). The institution was, therefore, awarded 100 percent on the score sheet 6.2.12 Catholic Justice Commission and Peace The booking of an appointment took place on 9th July 2007 at 9:00 a.m. with the Executive Director of Catholic Justice Commission and Peace (CCJP), Mr. Chris Chisoni, to be interviewed on 11th July 2007 at 10:00 a.m., which was fulfilled. CCJP is an organisation that looks into the affairs of people to ensure that the disadvantaged are not deprived of their rights and ensures peace among members of the society. CCJP indicated that it was consulted when government was formulating the national budget. The organisation ensured justice in the sharing of the national cake by commenting on the need for pro-poor expenditure areas in the budget 2006/2007 fiscal year. It also carried out advocacy on the same. It also conducted economic literacy trainings at district assembly level to ensure that the national budget was transparently implemented. Scoring It took two days for the organisation to release information.

29

The respondent was very willing to provide information. The respondent said he expected more than what MEJN had requested from him, and added that MEJN was welcome anytime they needed information related to good governance issues or any other work of CCJP. CCJP was, therefore, awarded 100 percent on the score sheet 6.2.13 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development The booking of an appointment took place on 15th June 2007 at 10:00 a.m. through the office of the PS, and it was booked for 19th June 2007 at10:00 a.m. However, when the day came, the assigned respondent, a Mr. T.G. Chirwa, the Chief Economist in the Planning Department, was hesitant to provide information because he persistently questioned the data collector to give him concrete reasons an organisation like MEJN would want such kind of information (despite that being clearly explained in the generic letter of appointment/request). He then said because he was assigned to respond to the questionnaire, he would do so at his own free time during the day. When the data collector made a follow up later in the day, all what the respondent could say was that he had lost the questionnaire. Scoring It was observed that the assigned officer had a negative attitude towards MEJN, especially when he persistently questioned what MEJN would do with information on budget. Later he did not seem interested at all to respond to the questionnaire, and the only excuse he could give was that he could not see the questionnaire, but was not interested to be interviewed orally, apparently aiming to delay the process as much as he wanted. As such, the institution was awarded 0 percent on the score sheet.

6.2.14 Office of the Ombudsman

Three visits were made at the Office of the Ombudsman on 26; 27; and 28 June 2007, at10:00 a.m.; 2:00 p.m.; and 9:00 a.m. respectively. Information was provided on 28 June 207 as follows: The Office of the Ombudsman requested K148 million (ORT) in the 2006/07 budget but it was allocated K24 million. The Office could not overspend the allocation because the Office of the Accountant General did not give out funds apart from the allocated figure.

30

The main challenge the office of the Ombudsman was facing was that the budget allocation was too small hence the office failed to help many people. However, the office got funding from NORAD apart from government, even though this was still not enough. The Office of the Ombudsman could not give out the document of income and expenditure for 2006/07 because the document was not ready by the time information was being sought. Scoring The Office feared that the information could be published in the media and warned that could put the job of the person who gave out information at risk hence asked for ethical consideration in the way the information gathered was going to be used. There was willingness from the Office of the Ombudsman to provide the research assistant with information, although with some suspicion as explained above. The institution was awarded 90 percent on the score sheet.

6.2.14 Poverty Reduction and Disaster Preparedness

Mrs. Ngoma, the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of the Poverty Reduction and Disaster Preparedness was interviewed on 12th June 2007 at 11:00 a.m. Although she showed some willingness to provide information straight away when first contacted, the respondent was, however, totally not willing to provide relevant information as per the questionnaire. She kept on justifying that, the budget is a very sensitive issue. Furthermore, she kept on lamenting that the budget was a very complicated process; there was no reason to complain even if the ministry was under-funded because it depends on how much the government had collected; and that the budget was never enough, anyway. But she could not provide specific answers to the specific questions on the questionnaire. The ministry was therefore awarded 30 percent on the score sheet.

6.2.15 Office of the Accountant General

The Deputy Accountant General was consulted on 11th June 2007 at 3:45 p.m. She however declined to provide information maintaining that the Ministry of Finance was the legitimate person to disclose information, I can only give information which I think and believe that it is not crucial because it is not my duty to disclose information.

31

She added that she could talk to the research assistant only if she found and read the budget document for the Office of the Accountant General. We accountants believe in figures, so I will discuss with you when you have the budget document which contains figures. When asked if she could provide the data collector the budget document for her office, she said she did not have any document and that it was the duty of the research assistant to find the document because the budget document would guarantee the discussions with her. Scoring The respondent indicated she could provide information only if she had the budget document with her. Although she had failed to provide information, but at least she had assured the data collector she would be willing to provide information, though on condition. In that she case, the institution was allocated 10 percent on the score sheet (taking into consideration that the data collector may have also contributed to the failure by failing to produce the document). 6.2.15 Ministry of Persons with Disabilities and the Elderly On 28 June 2007, the Principal Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Persons with Disability and the Elderly delegated the Director of Budgets in the Ministry to handle the issue of budget. The Director of Budgets told the data collector to leave the questionnaire but the next time the research assistant went there to collect the questionnaire he was told that the he got sick. As time went, the PS was asked to delegate to another person but this did not materialize as the PS insisted that the person who held the information sought was sick. Hence the main reason for not responding was that the person responsible for giving out information relating to budget got sick and was admitted at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Blantyre. Scoring The following are possible reasons why the request did not materialize: Initially there was stiff resistant for the PS to accept that his Ministry should give out information relating to budget. He said that there was need to get an authorization letter from the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC). The PS also feared that the information could be licked to the media hence was hesitant in the first place to accept the request. The PS expressed strong disappointment on how the media abuse public information by exaggerating and concentrating on the negatives. He concluded that it would be difficult for the media to access public information in the country

32

because the way it uses the information puts peoples jobs at risk as such no person would be willing to give out critical public information to the media. He said he preferred giving information to other organisations as opposed to the media. So it was when he was assured that the information would be used by MEJN not necessarily by the media that he then delegated the Director of Finance, who unfortunately fell sick and was admitted to hospital. The PS failed to delegate to another person. The institution was therefore given 0 percent on the percentage scale. 6.2.16 Council for Non Governmental Organisations in Malawi (CONGOMA) The Executive Director for Council for Non Governmental Organisations in Malawi (CONGOMA), Mr Ted Nandolo, was interviewed on 28th June 2007 at around 10:00 a.m. a day after dropping the request letter and questionnaire. At the time the request was dropped, the respondent himself was reported to be Lilongwe, and we were supposed to hear from him about when we could get responses the following day. He, however, granted an interview when went on 28 June 2007, at which he provided responses to our questionnaire as follows: CONGOMA was consulted during the process of formulation of the national budget for 2006/2007 fiscal year at two levels. First, the consultation was done at the secretariat level, and second through its membership. One way it got involved was through facilitating civil society workshops for its members on budget. It also facilitated participation of some of its members in budget forums, depending on the sectors and credibility of the institutions. Some of the institutions included MEJN, Civil Society Coalition for Quality Basic Education (CSCQBE), Network of Vulnerable and Orphaned Children (NOVOC), etcetera. CONGOMA ensured that the national budget was transparently implemented by monitoring the feedback that it received from some of its members. For instance, it got feedback from constant monitoring done by MEJN which was later shared with the rest of the membership. And transparency was also measured through the same feedback mechanism form MEJN, CSCQBE and NOVOC, to mention a few. The biggest challenge that CONGOMA and its membership encountered when monitoring the implementation of the budget was the sloppy release of information from government. Information usually came in bits and peaces thereby making it difficult to make sound input into the budget during formulation and during implementation. There was an observation that the civil society was sidelined by government. For instance, there was need for civil society to be given a chance to make short presentations, based on key sectors, before the budget was approved, or even discussed, by Parliament. For instance, Banja la Mtsogolo could make a presentation on health,

33

CSCQBE on education, Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET) on agriculture, etc. The respondent also observed that Government had generally bad attitude or perception against civil society, noting, perhaps government thinks that civil society only wants to point figures. The respondent further argued that government should recognise the fact that, on the contrary, civil society had contact with masses on the ground and could, therefore, make constructive inputs. In fact, civil society was not only interested in mere figures, but rather how the allocation had impacted on the masses. And therefore, it was important for government to get feedback from the ground through the civil society. Scoring It took one day for the institution to release information. The respondent was very wiling to provide information, and expressed support to MEJN for implementing this project. CONGOMA was, therefore, awarded 100 percent on the score sheet 6.2.17 Anti Corruption Bureau The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was first contacted by phone on 15th June 2007, to book an appointment, and the questionnaire was delivered on 18th June 2007. The Assistant Director, Mr. Victor Banda, responded to the questionnaire on 22 June 2007, as follows: The ACB is involved in the national budget by developing its annual work plan, and cost it for budgeting purposes and ensure that its implementation is transparent and accountable. The proposed budget for the fiscal year 2006/2007 was K127, 500, 000 as per the ceiling provided by the Ministry of Finance. The institution had so far used K114, 000, 000.00 It was, however, anticipating a negligible surplus at the end of the financial year. Scoring The institution was willing to provide information fully, although it took some days, about 7 days, to release information. The positive part was that the institution could delegate the responsibility to provide information, as the questionnaire was answered by the Assistant Director in the absence of the Director himself. ACB was, therefore, awarded 90 percent on the score sheet

34

6.2.18 Malawi Human Rights Commission The Chairperson of the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC), Mrs Dorothy Nyasulu, responded to the questionnaire in the afternoon of 28th June 2007, three days after booking an appointment (25th June 2007). The responses were as follows: The institution was allocated K89, 932, 068 during the 2006/2007 national budget. It had, however, proposed a total budget of K98, 011, 514 from treasury. The two major priority areas of expenditure were complaints handling and human rights education. The expenditure was audited by the National Audit Office for government funding and CARR for ICD project. The institution spent K41, 641, 817 for implementation of projects designed to protect and promote the rights of vulnerable people. Apart from Government, the institution received funding from other sources like NORAD/SIDA, UNDP and UNICEF. The respondent provided documentation related to the income and expenditure statement. Scoring The respondent was ready and willing to provide as much information as she could, and in timely manner. She had provided information within three days. Furthermore, she even shared with us the documented information related to budget expenditure when asked to do so. The institution was therefore awarded 100 percent. 6.2.19 Civil Service Commission The Deputy Secretary for Civil Service Commission, Mr. Willie Tembo, responded to our questionnaire on 27 June 2007 after one week from first appointment which took place on 21st June 2007. The responses were as follows: The commission was allocated K26 million from treasury during the fiscal year 2006/2007, out of the total K42 million it had proposed in its budget. Some of the achievement the commission made during the period under review was that it managed to conduct for the first time promotional interviews for the Malawi Police Service. It also conducted interviews for almost 1000 officers in the Prison Service.

35

It also helped to reduce civil service human resources gaps and orientation of officers. Some of the things the commission planned to do but failed due to budget limits were that it planned to purchase a photocopier, new fleet of vehicles and laptop computers. Scoring The institution was willing to provide information fully, although it took some days, about one week, to release information. The positive part was that the institution could delegate the responsibility to provide information, as the questionnaire was answered by the Deputy Secretary in the absence of the Secretary himself. The commission was, therefore, awarded 90 percent on the score sheet 6.2.20 National Roads Authority The data collector went to the National Roads Authority (NRA) in the afternoon of 15th June to book an appointment with the responsible person. He met the Public Relation Officer (PRO), Mrs Potia Kajanga, who took the questions and promised to get back. Despite several follow ups, the questions could not be responded to until the projects expiry. Scoring There was no data to analyse as the questions that the PRO took could not be answered in spite of making more than ten follow ups between 15th June and 15th July 2007. The reasons for not responding could only be attributed to the negative attitude the officer had in MEJN or the data collector. The respondent had expressed concern on the first day of booking an appointment that the data collector had not brought a typed questionnaire which showed to her that he was not prepared. On the other hand, the data collector had scribbled unstructured questions on a piece of paper which were illegible to the officer as he had come to simply to book an appointment, so he could later go back to prepare the questionnaire. He had, however, put the questions on paper in case he would be granted the chance straight away to interview the responsible person without necessarily using the questionnaire. Whichever the case, however, the officer was neither ready nor willing to provide information. The institution was therefore awarded 0 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.21 Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

36

The ministry was first contacted by phone on 12 June to book an appointment. The questionnaire was responded by a Mr. Njoka on 9th July 2007 after several follow ups were made. Some of the information provided were as follows: The ministry prepared the budget according to its annual activities it prepared to undertake. The total budget allocation for the fiscal year 2006/2007 was K1, 949, 840.793. It also assisted assemblies in their budget preparation. The Ministry believes that the decentralisation process in Malawi had a significant impact. With councillors in place, the assemblies budgeting process was now a consultative process with people. What came out of the budget were aimed at addressing peoples aspirations. The people were also responsible for monitoring its implementation. The ministry expressed concern that its allocation was not enough, noting that actually no ministry had ever been satisfied with its allocation because they seek so many things to do, but treasury can only do what it can. Scoring While the institution gave all the information being sought, it took almost 30 days to get data. During a series of follow ups, the respondent was at times reported out of the office. On 11th July, he indicated he had lost the questionnaire, and we had to reprint and resubmit it to his office. The institution was therefore awarded 40 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.22 Salima Town Assembly The Chief Executive of Salima Town Assembly, Mr. David Bandawe, was contacted on 13th July 2007, and he was willing to provide information right away, without having to book an appointment, in his office. He had invited his Systems Officer and Acting Director of Administration, Mr Fellions Sibale, and Mr Enoch Mahole, the Accountant, in order to assist him provide as much accurate information as possible. The information that was provided was as follows: The total budget allocation from treasury for the fiscal year 2006/2007 was 34 million, while the assemblys budget that was submitted was 37 million. It received K227, 000 per month in ORT, which was too small to implement its programmes. The assembly was forced to rely on the revenue it generated from market fees, levies and taxes.

37

The assembly was involved during the period under review in several activities, such as sewage collection, provision of lights in markets, cleaning and managing markets, among other things. The main challenges that the assembly faced were s follows: Heavy resistance from public to pay market fees and tax The charges for market fees and taxes were too small; there was need to raise the charges which had been stagnant for too long even if it meant raising by a small margin if the assembly was to raise enough resources and thereby function properly. For instance, the market fee was still K15 only. The assembly managed to provide the soft copy of the income and expenditure statement when they were asked. Scoring The institution showed willingness and readiness to provide information on budget. We did not have to book an appointment, as information was provided straight away. The Chief Executive even had the courtesy of inviting other key members of staff to help provide accurate and reliable information. And when asked for any documentation available to do with what had just been discussed, they did not hesitate but provided us with the information in soft copy which was yet to be published in book form. There were therefore allocated 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.2.23 Balaka District Assembly The District Commissioner (DC) of Balaka, Mr. Rodney Simwaka, was contacted on 17th July 2007, and he was willing to provide information right away, without having to book an appointment, as follows: The District Assembly had requested from treasury K201 million during the fiscal year 2006/2007. K11 million was for maintenance of roads only. The assembly implemented programmes in health education which involved curative and maintenance programmes, and procurement of hospital materials. It also implemented programmes on agriculture which involved supervision, crop estimates, sessions with farmers and agricultural demonstrations.

38

Other projects were on water management which involved maintenance and inspection; and HIV/AIDS and gender programmes which involved supervision of community based organisations (CBOs) and supervision of projects. One of the key programmes, perhaps one of the main thrusts of the very existence of the assembly, was the inspection of the markets. This involved, among other things, revitalising market committees to manage markets on their own properly; and training of revenue collectors. The respondent expressed satisfaction with the decentralisation system, citing the improved accessibility of financial resources now accessed directly from treasury rather than through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development as a result of decentralisation as one of the significant benefits. But the respondent cited a number of challenges that the assembly faced, which include: Capacity of the assembly was still lacking. They had so many assignments but only one vehicle. Related to capacity was the challenge of under-staffing which sometimes affected the financial management and/or prudence at the assembly. There was need to strengthen the Finance Department, especially now that the assembly dealt with a lot of programmes and partners at the same time. At the time of this interview, four senior positions were vacant in the department. The Director of Finance, for example, was supposed to have at least two assistant directors according to the organogram one responsible for expenditure and the other for development but they were not there. Below these assistant directors, there were also supposed to be at least two accountants reporting to each one of them. It was hence for the reason above that the respondent failed to provide a copy of income and expenditure statement which was a still not available, despite showing willingness to provide one. Information sharing was a problem despite the advent of decentralisation. According to the DC, the culture of reporting was till sluggish. People still want to be reporting to the central government and not the assembly. It was observed that it was taking time for people both at the assembly and at the institutions that work with the assembly to adjust their attitudes as regards information sharing as it related to the culture and systems of reporting Still related to the issues of information sharing, the DC also noted that the Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) lacked transparency when it came to the culture of reporting. He noted that each time civil society organisations were engaged in a research project, for example, they tend to report their findings to donors only, and not to the people or communities they serve. Even those that were based in the district, often times they would involve or work with the assembly throughout the project, but they were not willing to provide any report to the DEC meetings.

39

Another challenge was to do with under-funding for hidden activities. Hidden activities are those that require a lot of money but which are normally given less or no priority by treasury. They include settling of different forms of disputes at village by the DC, ranging from land disputes to witchcraft. Most of the transport costs were spent on these disputes that happen almost everyday, but were never taken into consideration when the budget allocation was made by treasury. Scoring The respondent was ready and willing to provide as much information as he could, without delay and without having to book an appointment, although he was unable to provide an income and expenditure statement which was not yet there. The institution was therefore given 90 percent on the percentage scale. Table 2: Summary of responses provided in this category:
Dept/Institution Record sought Budget Score sheet (Average score) 100 % Observation

(i) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Capital Hill (ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Mzuzu

Budget

100 %

(ii) Ministry of Information and Civic Education Salima

Budget

100%

The National Youth Council of Malawi (NYCOM)

Budget

100%

The respondent was very willing to give information. The response was in time There was total willingness from the Regional Information office to provide the data collector with information, as the questionnaire was answered both fully and in time. There was total willingness from the District Information office to provide the data collector with information, as the questionnaire was answered both fully and in time. The respondent was very willing to give information. He even went to the extent of giving the researcher two mobile phone numbers in case the researcher needed more information. The respondent was generally willing to give information although at first he seemed hesitant because, according to the Law Commissioner, the topic was technical. The general observation was that information at the ministry of

The Law Commission of Malawi

Budget

100%

Ministryof Defennse

Budget

0%

40

Defence was not easily accessible. There was totally no willingness or readiness to provide information. 7 Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare Headquarters Budget 0% No data to analyse. No willingness and readiness to provide information. The respondent was willing to provide information, as besides answering all the questions on the questionnaire, he was able to provide extra documentation on budget expenditure. The respondent answered all the questions fully. He could not provide the hard copy documentation on income and expenditure because it was with the Director of Finance at the District Assembly, as according to him, he was the one mandated to prepare such reports. The respondent answered all the questions fully. He could not provide the hard copy documentation on income and expenditure because it was with the Director of Finance at the District Assembly, as according to him, he was the one mandated to prepare such reports. In summary, it was tough to access information from the Ministry of Health apparently due to bureaucracy. The PS was willingness to provide information, as besides answering all the questions on the questionnaire, he was able to provide extra documentation on budget expenditure.

(ii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Mzimba

Budget

100%

(iii) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Salima

Budget

100%

10

(iv) Ministry of Gender, Women and Child Welfare - Balaka

Budget

95%

11

Ministry Of Health and Population

Budget

0%

11

Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning

Budget

100%

13

Ministry of Finance

Budget

60%

Although there was a lot of reluctance and suspicion earlier, characterised by bureaucracy information was however provided in full in the end.
There was totally non willingness to provide information. The respondent was willing to provide information in full and in

14 15

Ministry of Sports National Audit Office (NAO)

Budget Budget

0% 100%

41

time. 16 (i) Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Budget 40% All the questions on the questionnaire were answered fully. However, it took nearly a month for the questionnaire to be attended to after 11 follow ups were made. The questionnaire was assigned to specific departments like Accounts, Planning, and Legal department. This made the questionnaire to take one month before it was fully answered due to the bureaucratic nature of the system. The respondent was very wiling to provide information, as the answered all the questions fully as well as in time. It took two days for the organisation to release information. The respondent was very willing to give information. The respondent said he expected more than what MEJN had requested from him, and added that MEJN was welcome anytime they needed information related to good governance issues or any other work of CCJP. It was observed that the assigned officer had a negative attitude towards MEJN, especially when he persistently questioned what MEJN would do with information on budget. Later he did not seem interested at all to respond to the questionnaire, and the only excuse he could give was that he could not see the questionnaire, but was not interested to be interviewed orally, apparently aiming to delay the process as much as he wanted. The Office feared that the information could be published in the media and warned that could put the job of the person who gave out information at risk hence asked for ethical consideration in the way the information gathered was going to be used. There was

17

(ii) The Judiciary - Mzimba

Budget

100%

18

Catholic Justice Commission and Peace

Budget

100%

19

Ministry of Development

Irrigation

and

Water

Budget

0%

20

Office of the Ombudsman

Budget

90%

42

21

Poverty Reduction Preparedness

and

Disaster

Budget

30%

22

Office of the Accountant General

Budget

10%

23

Ministry of Persons with Disabilities and the Elderly

Budget

0%

24

Council for Non Governmental Organisation in Malawi (CONGOMA)

Budget

100%

25

Anti Corruption Bureau

Budget

90%

26

Malawi Human Rights Commission

Budget

100%

willingness from the Office of the Ombudsman to provide the research assistant with information, although with some suspicion. Although she showed some willingness to provide information straight away when first contacted, the respondent was, however, totally not willing to provide relevant information as per the questionnaire. Furthermore, she kept on lamenting that the budget was a very complicated process. The respondent indicated she could provide information only if she had the budget document with her. Although she had to failed provide information, but at least she had assured the data collector she would be willing to provide information on condition. It was when the PS was assured that the information would be used by MEJN not necessarily by the media that he then showed willingness to provide information by delegating the Director of Finance, who unfortunately fell sick and was admitted to hospital. It took one day for the institution to release information. The respondent was very wiling to provide information, and expressed support to MEJN for implementing this project. The institution was willing to provide information fully, although it took some days, about 7 days, to release information. The positive part was that the institution could delegate the responsibility to provide information, as the questionnaire was answered by the Assistant Director in the absence of the Director himself. The respondent was ready and willing to provide as much information as she could, and in time. She had provided

43

information within three days. Furthermore, she even shared with us the documented information related to budget expenditure when asked to do so. 27 Civil service Commission Budget 90% The institution was willing to provide information fully, although it took some days, about one week, to release information. The positive part was that the institution could delegate the responsibility to provide information, as the questionnaire was answered by the Deputy Secretary in the absence of the Secretary himself. There was no data to analyse as the PRO could not answer questions in spite of making more than ten follow ups between 15th June and 15th July 2007. While the institution gave all the information being sought, it took almost 30 days to get data. During a series of follow ups, the respondent was at times reported out of the office. On 11th July, he indicated he had lost the questionnaire, and we had to reprint and resubmit it to his office. The institution showed willingness and readiness to provide information on budget. We did not have to book an appointment, as information was provided straight away. The Chief Executive even had the courtesy of inviting other key members of staff to help provide accurate and reliable information. And when asked for any documentation available to do with what had just been discussed, they did not hesitate but provided us with the information in soft copy which was yet to be published in book form. The respondent was ready and willing to provide as much information as he could, without delay and without having to book

28

National Roads Authority

Budget

0%

29

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development

Budget

40%

30

Salima Town Assembly

Budget

100%

31

Balaka District Assembly

Budget

90%

44

an appointment, although he was unable to provide an income and expenditure statement which was not yet there.

6.3 Information on the Status of Current Privatisation of State Enterprises

This category faired badly, probably the worst of all categories in terms of levels of willingness in providing information. It was, however, ironical considering that it is the officials in the civil service who are perceived to have the tendency not to provide information as compared to other sectors. We had targeted nine privatised enterprises in Lilongwe and Blantyre, one non-privatised institution in Lilongwe, and the Privatisation Commission itself, but out of the 11 institutions visited, only four namely Bakresa Grain and Milling, New Capital Diary Co. Ltd (2007), Lilongwe Water Board, and the Privatisation Commission itself managed to provide information. Reasons for failing to provide information were as follows: In most companies, the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) were busy to respond to the questionnaire, and they took a lot of time to delegate to someone else within the institution. Wherever the questionnaire had been delegated, though, the person responsible was also reported busy to attend to questionnaire. In many cases, they were reported to have travelled abroad or within the country attending meetings. At Air Malawi Ltd in Blantyre, for example, the CEO could not delegate the questionnaire to anyone despite not sparing time to respond to the questionnaire himself. At Malawi Telecommunication Ltd (MTL), the CEO delegated the questionnaire after some time to two people at different intervals, but both were often reported out of office. 6.3.1 Privatisation Commission of Malawi The request letter was delivered together with questionnaire in the afternoon of 25th June 2006 addressed to the Chief Executive. In the morning of the following day, the data collector was called to collect the questionnaire which was fully answered by the person responsible for information dissemination at the Commission, a Mr. Mtonga. The following were some of the responses: The commission, as the sole authority in Malawi to implement privatisation, plans and manages implementation of the privatisation of public enterprises. It had contributed to better performance of public enterprises (PEs). It had eliminated government subsidies to PEs. It had contributed towards the establishment of the capital market.

45

K5.7 Billion had so far been realised from privatisation. As per the Privatisation Act, the money realised had been used in the following ways: Funding the Commission, i.e. funding the costs of privatisation under the Act Funding the restructuring of a public enterprise that is about to be privatised Payment of retrenchment liabilities, and Funding of any project of Government 66 enterprises had been privatised so far (as of 26th June 2007) The amount of budget allocation from treasury varied from one fiscal year to another. When asked if it could provide hard copy of expenditure statement of money realised from the privatisation programme, the Commission provided us with its latest annual report on partial use of the money. The rest was accounted for by the Ministry of Finance which holds the Privatisation Revenue Account. Scoring The Commission responded to our questionnaire both fully and in time. They also provided us with relevant documentation on privatisation, although they could not provide a detailed expenditure statement which was the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, according t the respondent. The institution was therefore awarded the maximum 5 points on the scale of 1-5. 6.3.2 Bakresa Grain and Milling The CEO of the Bakresa Grain and Milling company, Mr Bakresa, was contacted on 23 June 2007 and it took about ten days to respond to our questionnaire because at first he was not interested. He advised us to collect data from the Commission because they were the ones responsible for privatisation. But we managed to reason with him that most of the questions concerned the company itself and not the commission, since they focused on, among other things, how the company was performing after privatisation. When he was convinced to respond to the questionnaire, it still took him quite some time to spare time to attend to the questionnaire which was faxed on 5th July 2007. However, the responses given were not sufficient. Most of the questions were answered partially. It was therefore given 2 points on the scale of 1-5.

46

6.3.3 New Capital Diary Co. Ltd (2007) The Director of Finance, Mr. M.K. Banda, responded to our questionnaire on 11 July 2007 after taking about three weeks from the day the first appointment was booked and the questionnaire delivered. The first contact took place on 18th June 2007. The following were some the responses given: The company had not yet started full-scale operations, and it was therefore difficult to say whether it was performing according to expectations or not. K150 million was invested in the company. At the time of liquidation, it was only milk which was being produced but they intended to continue with milk and re-introduce fruit juices and stork margarine production. Besides making profits, the company also intended to be involved in social responsibilities such as assisting the needy through donations and sponsoring some sporting games. During the restructuring process, 56 employees had been retrenched. 26 had been reemployed. Scoring Although the questionnaire was answered fully, it took three weeks for the company to release information. At some point, the respondent even claimed he had lost the questionnaire in his office. The institution was therefore awarded 3 on the scale of 1-5 6.3.4 Lilongwe Water Board The Accountant at Lilongwe Water Board, Mr. Gladwell Mphande, was interviewed at his office on 22nd June 2007 at around 10:30 a.m. after being delegated by his Finance Manager, who had also earlier been delegated by his Deputy Manager. The first contact point, however, was the office of the General Manager on 19th June 2007 at 10:00 a.m. but he referred our data collector to the Deputy Manager, who provided responses as follows:. Lilongwe Water Board is a Government parastatal, but it does not get any subvention from Government. It operates on a full commercial basis. There have been debate on the need to privatise the Board and rumours were rife that government may privatise the institution to enhance efficiency in delivery of service.

47

The Board used its own funds, to the tune of K1.1 Billion for re-current activities, for the fiscal year 2006/2007. It also had K350 million for development activities. The institution anticipated a budget deficit due to external factors that had led to the Board incurring huge exchange loses (on long outstanding capital investment loans). The respondent confirmed having heard the rumours about possible privatisation of not only the Lilongwe Water Board, but all other water boards in Malawi. He acknowledged that government would want to enhance private sector participation in the delivery of services. However, indications were that outright privatisation was not being considered, according to the respondent The respondent also acknowledged that the rumour had negatively affected the morale of the staff, but it had no negative impact on the delivery of services. In his own opinion, privatising water in Malawi would have both positive and negative implications. Possibility of enhanced efficiency would exist, but cost could go up. Scoring The institution responded to our questionnaire fully. The research assistant had to go through four officers before the questionnaire could be answered after four days. The institution was therefore awarded the maximum 4 points on the scale of 1-5.

6.3.5 Graphical representation

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Levels of willingness

Bakresa Commission New Diary W. Board

48

6.4 Information on Food Security and Goal Number one of the MDGs
In this category, the requests were focusing mainly on food security issues and Goal number one of the Millennium Development Gaols (MDGs) instead of all the eights goals which centres on poverty and hunger. 6.4.2 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security was first contacted on 2nd July 2007 but the interview was finally granted on 12 July 2007. There were three visits between the first contact and the interview The respondent, Mr. Idrissa Mwale, said approximately 3.2 million metric tones of maize were harvested during the fiscal year 2006/2007. Out of this the country intends to sell to other countries 400,000 metric tones. The proceeds from the sell of maize, according to governments plan, is to deposit the amounts in the governments account where any expenditure will be made basing on Parliaments decision. Government is constructing silos in Mzuzu, Luchenza and Mangochi to ensure food security in the coming years. Implementation of subsidy programme and public works programme are some of the measures the Ministry has lined up to ensure food security in the country. The Ministry intends to increase the number of beneficiaries of the fertilizer subsidy programme due to the increased demand. Scoring The responsible person giving out information showed stiff resistance before accepting to provide information on food security. He warned that the information should not be seen in the local newspapers or any form of the media. Bureaucracy also affected the process of accessing information as there were many delegations from one person to another. The ministry was awarded 50 percent on the score sheet. 6.4.2 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development

49

The ministry was first contacted on 18th June 2007 at 10:15 a.m. through the office of the PS. The secretary of the PS then referred the researcher to Mr. T.G. Chirwa, the Chief Economist in the Planning Department. The questionnaire was, however, responded on 2nd July 2007 after several appointments with the respondent. The appointments failed to materialise four times, as the respondent was reported to be engaged with other commitments on all occasions. The respondent finally provided responses as follows: The ministry is mandated to ensure sustainable provision of water supply and sanitation services and ensure effective implementation of irrigation programmes that contribute to food security and household income generation. The ministry was implementing development projects under the departments of irrigation; water supply and sanitation; and water resources management that all contribute to the attainment of food security and poverty reduction. According to the ministry, as at the end of the fiscal year 2006/2007, poverty levels in Malawi had dropped from 60 percent (in 2004) to 52 percent. 1526 boreholes had been constructed and 2212 boreholes were rehabilitated during the period under review 2006/2007. The ministry indicated it was aware the challenges that the Water Boards were facing. It was therefore preparing for a second phase of the National Water Development Programme (NWDP II) that largely focuses on the operations of water boards in the country. The ministry was optimistic that Malawi would achieve MDG Number One by 2015, but warned that poor institutional management and stakeholder misalignment of activities in relation the MDGs could potentially hinder the achievement of goal number one. Scoring The respondent responded to all the questions fully, despite that it took long before the questionnaire was attended to. As such, the ministry was awarded 70 percent on the score sheet. 6.4.3 OXFAM The programme Manager for OXFAM was first contacted on 21 June 2007 at 3:00 p.m. and willingly gave us the information straight away without having to book for an appointment

50

OXFAM implements a livelihood programme and supports advocacy for sustainable food policies to improve food and income security in Malawi. It has programmes in Chiradzulu, Mulanje, Thyolo, Phalombe, and Blantyre rural where they work with farmers on good farming methods. Furthermore, it provides inputs where necessary in order for the farmers to improve their yield. According OXFAM, Malawi has a lot of potential to achieve Goal Number One. However, there is need for quality advice, better access to land and predictable and consistent input policies if indeed the achievement of Goal Number One is to be realistic. There is also need to comprehensively examine the market aspects of food security. OXFAM had not yet had the opportunity to objectively assess the subsidy programme but this had been planned for in the years to come. Scoring The respondent showed willingness and readiness to provide information, as he (a) Gave the information straight away without asking for more time, and (b) Responded fully to our questions on the questionnaire. OXFAM was, therefore, awarded the maximum 100 percent on the score sheet. 6.4.4 Small Holder Farmers Fertilizer Fund (SFFRF) The Small Holder Farmers Fertilizer Fund (SFFRF) was first contacted on 25th June 2007 at 10:30 a.m. We were referred by a Mr. Chilende to speak to late Mr. Chinguwo at the Headquarters in Blantyre. The latter passed away in the course of making follow-ups, and Mr. Chilende was not committed to provide any response as we continued to follow up with him until July 13. At one point, Mr. Chinguwo was faxed the questionnaire and a follow up phone call was made. He confirmed receipt of the questionnaire but he never responded until he died despite several follow ups. Scoring There was no data to analyse as none of the officials were willing to provide information after the demise of Mr. Chinguwo. And even before the passing away of late Chinguwo, he seemed not ready to provide information himself. We were not, however, not sure whether his illness before dying contributed to the failure not to provide information.

51

What we are sure though is the fact that during this period, he was reporting to duties, so illness may not be an excuse for not providing information. Alternatively, even it were so, he would have delegated to someone else, which never happened. That explains why we awarded SFFRF zero percent on the score sheet 6.4.5 Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET) The Executive Director of Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET) was interviewed on 13th July at 2:30 p.m., 13 days after the first appointment was booked on 26th June 2007. He provided responses as follows: CISANET advocates for adequate allocation of funds to the agricultural sector and also monitors the implementation of the agriculture budget to ensure that government is transparent and accountable. Over the past four years, CISANET had contributed in the budget development process by working closely with the line government departments as they develop the national budget; it had done post budget analysis and presented its findings to the line ministry, the ministry of Finance, and Parliament for consideration. The biggest challenge that CISANET had faced when participating in the budget formulation process was accessibility of information. It had been difficult to get information from government departments. Another challenge that it faced was that it was very expensive to meet Members of Parliament, as besides CISANET meeting other relevant costs, MPs also usually demanded sitting allowances. CISANET had particularly faced unwillingness from public authorities in giving out information especially in situations where much had been spent but the intended activity was not done accordingly. The involvement of CISANET in the budget formulation process had an impact, as, according to the respondent, there had been increasing trend in the budget allocation to the agriculture sector, and Malawi had surpassed the SADC standard of 10 percent of the GDP allocation to 12 percent as of last budget, and for two years agriculture had been given the lions share. The respondent believed there was still room for improvement as evidenced by the governments willingness to implement most of the recommendations proposed by CISANET, especially in the fertilizer subsidy programme and also government was showing signs of opening up in as far as information sharing was concerned. Scoring

52

The respondent provided as much information as he had been asked. The only downside was that it took long before information could be provided after the first appointment was booked. The institution therefore scored 80 percent on the score sheet. Table 3: Summary of responses provided in this category:
Dept/Institution 1 Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Record sought MDG 1 Score sheet (average score) 50% Observation The responsible person giving out information showed stiff resistant before accepting to giving out information on food security. He warned that the information should not be seen in the local newspapers or any form of the media. Bureaucracy also affected the process of accessing information. The respondent responded to all the questions fully, despite that it took long before the questionnaire was attended to. The respondent showed willingness and readiness to provide information, as he (c) Gave the information straight away without asking for more time, and (d) Responded fully to our questions on the questionnaire. There was no data to analyse as none of the officials were willing to provide information after the demise of Mr. Chinguwo. And even before the passing away of late Chinguwo, he seemed not ready to provide information himslf. The respondent provided as much information as he had been asked. The only downside was that it took long before information could be provided after the first appointment was booked.

Ministry of Irrigation and Water Development

MDG 1

70%

OXFAM

MDG 1

100%

Small Holder Farmers Fertilizer Fund (SFFRF)

MDG 1

0%

Civil Society Agriculture Network (CISANET)

MDG 1

80%

53

6.5 Information on the National Forestry Programme

This category faired the best of all categories, on average, as all the three respondents provided information fully, and without delay. There was neither bureaucracy nor suspicion. 6.5.1 Department of Forestry Salima District Mr. Mathews Mkwapatira, Senior Forestry Officer in Salima District granted us an interview straight away (without an appointment) on 13 July 2007 at around 9:00 a.m. at his office on issues related to the Forestry Programme in his district. He provided information as follows: During the fiscal year 2006/2007, the department in Salima was engaged in disseminating forest extension programmes whereby it mobilised people to raise tree seedlings and also to plant and manage the trees. It also was involved in building capacities of communities so that they could know .leadership skills in group dynamics, targeting mainly the Village Natural Resources Management Committees (VNRMCs). The department coordinated with other stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, to improve and preserve natural resources that could benefit agriculture. There were 201 VNRMCs in the district, and the department managed to visit all of them to implement sensitisation activities. However, they managed to carry out training (as opposed to normal sensitisation) in 10 only VNRMCs because of lack of funding. The department was also involved during the period under review in enforcing the Forestry Act of Parliament by, among other things, conducting forest patrols. This activity involved confiscating and burning of illegal charcoal and other items; and sometimes bringing the culprits found with illegal charcoal to court. The patrols were done in both Government Reserves and customary land. From the Government Reserves, they managed to confiscate the following illegal items during the period under review: 5 bags of charcoal 120 baskets 15 bundles of bamboos (300 bamboos) 86 planks 9 bicycles 2 pit sews From customary land, the department managed to confiscate the following illegal items:

54

10 bags of charcoal 80 lead mats 6 cubic metres of firewood 72 planks During the same period, only one person was, however, taken to court but bolted. There were no attempts to bring the other culprits to court because they were deemed not to have committed a serious offence in their opinion (not necessarily as per the law). The person who had been brought to court (although she ran away) was a woman who was singled out because she was suspected to be the mastermind of the illegal business. It must be stated, however, that all the above statistics were recorded in September, as the last/latest report was produced in September when they carried out the last patrol. Since then, the department had not carried out any patrol due to lack of funding. Scoring The respondent was ready to provide information on the subject matter without any delay, and without any appointment. He was willing to share with us the latest patrol report, but failed because they could neither print out the report which was, in the first place, hand written, nor photocopy it due to lack of resources. Otherwise, the respondent answered all our questions fully. The department was therefore awarded the maximum 5 percent on a scale of 1 5. 6.5.2 Department of Forestry Balaka District The District Forestry Officer, Mr. Charles Kamwenndo, was consulted on 17 July 2007 at his office without booking an appointment and he willingly provided us with information as follows: During the fiscal year 2006/2007, the department carried out the usual national forestry season programmes which involved all stakeholders in the district such as schools, individuals, estates, churches, NGOs and other key government institutions like the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Activities implemented were seedling production and planting; conservation of existing trees, rehabilitation of bare hills; and rehabilitation of bare streams. It was involved in sensitisation of awareness campaigns for conservation of soil and water where they targeted mainly traditional authorities. The department also implemented programmes on carbon sequestration (absorption of carbon dioxide) and other ecosystem production.

55

The department, however, failed to carry out routine work like patrols to confiscate illegal items like charcoal, timber, etc. due to lack of resources. The biggest challenge had been that for the past two and half years, the forestry department in Balaka had not received any funding/ORT from government to carry out its activities, although the officer had been receiving a salary, which is not connected to ORT. As such, the implementation of all the activities highlighted above were actually projects run by other donors such as the EU and NGOs working in the environmental sector, to which the officer was invited to actively participate by virtue of representing government and providing technical advice. The reason for not receiving any funding from government for more than two years was that the Balaka District Forestry Department had not yet been devolved i.e. it was not yet in the governments decentralisations system although, surprisingly, government had put in place an ill-equipped office with an officer to man it. In other words, Government had been paying its officer for the Balaka District for more than two years for basically doing nothing, save for projects implemented by other donors and NGOs but which he was invited to be involved in the implementation by virtue of simply being a governments representative. Scoring The officer was very willing and ready to provide any information related to his work without delay or having to book for an appointment. The institution was awarded the maximum 5 points on the scale of 1-5. 6.5.3 Department of Forestry Mzimba District The District Forestry Assistant, Mrs. Lucy Gondwe, was consulted on 19 July 2007 at her office without booking an appointment and she willingly provided us with information as follows: During the fiscal year 2006/2007, the department was involved in sensitising communities and implementing programme activities on improved forestry for sustainable livelihood programmes under the European Union (EU). Activities in this programmes included promoting income generating activities in communities; teaching communities how to utilise natural resources effectively; training in mushroom production; training in bee keeping production; and training in fruit making. It also encouraged communities to own woodlots.

56

The department was also involved in enforcing both the Forestry Policy and Act of Parliament whereby members of communities were being allowed to collect natural resources by buying general receipts. Those who were found collecting without receipts (i.e. illegally) had their items confiscated during patrols. The following items were confiscated during patrols: 50 bags charcoal 183 poles 82 bicycles 79 bundles of firewood

The statistics above were based on the latest quarterly report.

Scoring The officer was very willing and ready to provide any information related to her work without delay or having to book for an appointment. The institution was awarded the maximum 5 points on the scale of 1-5.

6.5.4 Graphical representation

5 4 3 2 1 0 Levels of willingness Forestry Salima Forestry Balaka Forestry Mzimba

57

7.0 PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS The first marked achievement is directly related to the overall objective of the project itself, which is to assess to the willingness of the public authorities in providing information. With the government ministries and institutions that were consulted, we were able to determine the level of willingness largely using the indicators in the request form as well as the general observation made by the data collectors. The levels were determined both qualitatively and quantitatively. Also with the challenges that were identified during implementation of project activities (as highlighted below), we were able to have a clear picture of what sort of capacity needs the civil society organisations require in accessing information from the public offices. Another significant achievement is that the project activities managed to generate a considerable amount of information resources and knowledge on various topical issues, which will later be shared with other strategic stakeholders, including the public. As already envisaged in the project concept, such resources would point to an overwhelming need for information on the advancement of socio- economic justice and the attendant responses of public and private bodies. 8.0 CHALLENGES The first challenge to do with adjustment to the given timeframe of the project taking into consideration that the project kick-started later than planned due to the delay in the transfer of funds. Secondly, one of the key challenges faced was that during project preparations, when developing the budget, we overlooked the need to cost and engage data entry interns, who should have been specifically charged with the task of entering and consolidating data (and not necessarily analysing it) into a computer. In fact, the ideal situation should have been that the six data collectors who were engaged on this project should have been the ones transferring data that had been recorded on the questionnaires and request forms into a computer database. On the contrary, the situation required that the project manager to put together all the filled-in request forms and all the filled-in questionnaires (besides also being centrally involved in developing them), in order to enter data into the computer himself. After entering data, then he begins analysing it. This was consuming a lot of time considering that the project, which already delayed to start, had to elapse within two-three months. It would have been more convenient if the project manager was fundamentally involved in analysing data entered by the data entry interns, besides providing overall guidance of the project, than spending more time entering raw data himself.

58

Unfortunately, none of the data collectors had access to computer, as it was not budgeted for. Overall, there had not been significant more challenges as regards to the actual implementation of the project activities, since in this context what could have been perceived as challenges in accessing information from public offices were, for purposes of this project, rather preferred to be perceived as project variables/indicators used to determine the levels of willingness on the part of the record/information holders. 9.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations in this chapter are targeted on specific government as well as nongovernmental institutions, donors, and campaigners for enactment of the Access to Information Bill, for possible implementation in form of specific interventions emanating from the study. 1. Civil society must step up campaign for the enactment of the Access to Information Bill. Having identified that fear for reprisals was one of the factors that contributed to the levels of willingness to provide information, putting in place a legislative framework would help deal with the problem in the sense that the draft Bill as it is now does not only mandate pubic authorities to provide information but also protects whistle blowers. The campaign should continue to emphasise the need for raising awareness on the need for having such an act. 2. There is need to capacitate public offices, especially government departments, with not only appropriate resources like computers but also the necessary skills in record keeping so that information is available at all times whenever sought by any public member or other stakeholders, as long as that information is required for the exercise of his or her rights. 3. There is also need to capacitate civil society to independently undertake information requests beyond this pilot phase. Besides provision of resources for implementation of general project activities, capacity would be needed in the areas of data collection and data analysis. Already, this survey, despite that it was on a small scale, has already manifested itself to be very crucial to the advancement of socio-economic development, as it has managed to generate and properly document information resources on various topical issues affecting the nation.

59

ANNEX 1: SAMPLE REQUEST LETTERS (On official MEJN letterhead)

22nd May 2007 The Principal Secretary Ministry of Information and Civic Education Private Bag 310 Capital City, Lilongwe Dear Sir, Request for information on the status of the draft Access to Information Bill The Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) is a coalition of civil society organisations committed to poverty reduction through promotion of equitable and just distribution of socioeconomic opportunities through capacity building of civil society, policy research and dissemination, advocacy and monitoring for good economic governance at national and international levels. The organization is currently in the process of implementing a project which seeks to pilot access to information requests explored with a range of civil society actors in consultative seminars held during the first quarter of project implementation in four countries within SADC, namely- Mozambique, Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland with a view to assessing the ability of public authorities to provide access to information. In view of the fore-going, request is hereby made to your ministry for information on the status of the draft Access to Information Bill. The request is being made under a provision on access to information, in Section 37 of the Republican Constitution, that stipulates, Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights. The requested information will help us, among other things, to develop a comprehensive campaign strategy for the enactment of the access to information Bill with all other partners. We, therefore, trust that you will respond to our request within reasonable period of time owing to the urgency of the matter. Yours faithfully, Andrew Kumbatira

Executive Director

60

12th June 2007 The Principal Secretary Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning Private Bag 311 Capital City, Lilongwe Dear Sir, Request for information related to budget allocation to your ministry in the fiscal year 2006-2007 The Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) is a coalition of civil society organisations committed to poverty reduction through promotion of equitable and just distribution of socioeconomic opportunities through capacity building of civil society, policy research and dissemination, advocacy and monitoring for good economic governance at national and international levels. The organization is currently in the process of implementing a project which seeks to pilot access to information requests explored with a range of civil society actors in consultative seminars held during the first quarter of project implementation in four countries within SADC, namely- Mozambique, Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland with a view to assessing the ability of public authorities to provide access to information. In view of the fore-going, request is hereby made to your ministry for information on the budget allocations and/or breakdown to your ministry for the fiscal year 2006-2007. The request is being made under a provision on access to information, in Section 37 of the Republican Constitution, that stipulates, Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights. The requested information will help us, among other things, to monitor the performance in the implementation of the budget allocation by your ministry during the period under review. We, therefore, trust that you will respond to our request within reasonable period of time owing to the urgency of the matter. Yours faithfully, Andrew Kumbatira

Executive Director

61

15th June 2007 The Director Christian Health Association of Malawi P. O. Box 30378 Lilongwe Dear Sir, Request for information related to budget allocation to the Ministry of Health in the fiscal year 2006-2007 The Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) is a coalition of civil society organisations committed to poverty reduction through promotion of equitable and just distribution of socioeconomic opportunities through capacity building of civil society, policy research and dissemination, advocacy and monitoring for good economic governance at national and international levels. The organization is currently in the process of implementing a project which seeks to pilot access to information requests explored with a range of civil society actors in consultative seminars held during the first quarter of project implementation in four countries within SADC, namely- Mozambique, Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland with a view to assessing the ability of public authorities to provide access to information. In view of the fore-going, request is hereby made to your association for any relevant information that you may have related to the budget allocation to the Health ministry for the fiscal year 2006-2007. The request is being made under a provision on access to information, in Section 37 of the Republican Constitution, that stipulates, Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights. The requested information will help us, among other things, to monitor the performance in the implementation of the budget allocation by the ministry during the period under review. We, therefore, trust that you will respond to our request within reasonable period of time owing to the urgency of the matter. Yours faithfully, Andrew Kumbatira

Executive Director

62

15th June 2007 The Manager DairiBoard Malawi Ltd. P. O. Box 30647 Lilongwe Dear Sir, Request for information on issues related to privatization of your institution The Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) is a coalition of civil society organisations committed to poverty reduction through promotion of equitable and just distribution of socioeconomic opportunities through capacity building of civil society, policy research and dissemination, advocacy and monitoring for good economic governance at national and international levels. The organization is currently in the process of implementing a project which seeks to pilot access to information requests explored with a range of civil society actors in consultative seminars held during the first quarter of project implementation in four countries within SADC, namely- Mozambique, Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland with a view to assessing the ability of public authorities to provide access to information. In view of the fore-going, request is hereby made to your institution for information related the privatization of your institution. The request is being made under a provision on access to information, in Section 37 of the Republican Constitution, that stipulates, Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights. The requested information will help us, among other things, to monitor the performance of your institution and appreciate the potential benefits of the privatization process in Malawi. We, therefore, trust that you will respond to our request within reasonable period of time owing to the urgency of the matter. Yours faithfully, Andrew Kumbatira

Executive Director

63

ANNEX 2: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES NOTE: All questionnaires have a template cover page as shown below:

MALAWI ECONOMIC JUSTICE NETWORK ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUESTS PILOT PROJECT

QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire serves as a research instrument for the Access to Information Requests Pilot Project The Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) funds the Access to Information Requests Pilot Project (ATI- RPP). This is a regional implemented in four countries within SADC, namely- Mozambique, Lesotho, Malawi and Swaziland. It seeks to assess the willingness of public authorities to provide access to information despite the dearth of a legislative framework providing for access to information. Most importantly, it seeks to assess the feasibility and capacity needs of access to information civil society partners in the above-mentioned countries with a view to determining whether they can independently undertake information requests after the pilot phase. Name of Org/Institution Name of Contact Person (respondent) Contact Details (address, tel, e-mail, etc) Date

64

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE HEALTH MINISTRY Instructions Please tick or circle where options are given. Explain where space is provided.

1. How much did the Ministry of Health request from the treasury in the 2006 / 07 budget? ... 2. How much money was allocated to the ministry out of the proposed budget? .. 3. Has the ministry used all its allocation? . 4. Has the ministry experienced deficit? 5. How many referral hospitals does the ministry serve? 6. How much from the 2006 / 07 budget allocation did you use for the referral hospitals? .. 7. How many district hospitals are there for the ministry to serve? 8. How much has been spent on all the district hospitals from the 2006 / 07 budget? 9. How much has been spent on drugs for all the hospitals in the 2006 / 07 budget? . 10. How much has been spent on hospital equipment for various hospitals in the country from this years budget? . 11. How much has been spent on maintenance work and general construction within the ministry? .

65

12. How much from the 2006 / 07 budget has been utilised to improve the health standards of Malawians? 13. How did the treasury respond to the ministrys 2006 budget proposal? 14. How prudently can you say the ministry has used its allocation? 15. What tangible impact has the 2006 / 07 budget done on all referral hospitals? 16. How effective has the budget been on all district hospitals? 17. How has the 2006 / 07 budget affected the procurement, protection and supply of drugs within the ministry? 18. How has the 2006 / 07 budget improved the health standards of the citizens? 19. How has the 2006 / 07 improved health infrastructure? Thank you for answering my questionnaire.

66

QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions Please tick or circle where options are given. Explain where space is provided.

20. How much did the office of the Accountant General request for funding in the 2006 / 2007 budget? .. 21. How much money was allocated to the office of the Accountant General for 2006 / 2007 budget? .. 22. How much has been spent out of the total allocation? .. 23. Was the allocation enough? (a) Yes (b) No

24. If yes or no in question (4) hereunder explain why? 25. What is the role the office of the Accountant General play in the budget process? 26. Apart from the government budget allocation do you have any other source(s) of income that helps the running of the office of the Accountant General? (a) Yes (b) No

27. If yes in question (7) hereunder please state the alternative source(s) of income? 28. Can I have a copy of income and expenditure of the funds that were allocated to the office of the Accountant General for the 2006 / 2007 budget? (a) Yes (b) No

29. If no in question (9) hereunder explain why?

Thank you for answering my questionnaire.

67