Hailed as a landmark victory for transparency, Zambia’s Access to Information Act promised citizens a legal right to government records. But MakanDay’s reporting—and the experiences of civil society organisations—suggest many public institutions remain unprepared or unwilling to comply, leaving the right to know largely unrealised.
By Ennety Munshya
More than two years after Zambia’s Access to Information (ATI) Act came into force, citizens seeking information from public institutions continue to encounter confusion, delays and silence, raising questions about whether one of the country’s most significant governance reforms is being implemented in practice.
To test the law, MakanDay submitted formal requests for information to the Ministry of Health. The exercise exposed uncertainty over who should receive ATI requests, additional administrative requirements not provided for in the law and a failure to respond within the statutory deadline.
The experience mirrors concerns raised by civil society organisations, which say many public institutions continue to fall short of the Act’s requirements.
Searching for an Information Officer
On 12 May 2026, MakanDay visited the Ministry of Health headquarters to submit two ATI requests seeking records relating to the 2023 recruitment database used during the April 2026 recruitment of health workers and information on the Ministry’s staffing establishment.
The requests were submitted using Form I, the official application form prescribed under the Access to Information (General) Regulations, 2024.
What should have been a routine process quickly exposed implementation challenges.
Instead of being directed to a designated Information Officer, MakanDay was referred from the reception to the Legal Department, then to the Public Relations Unit, and finally to the Permanent Secretary (Technical Services). At no stage could officials identify who the Ministry’s designated Information Officer was.
Officials also requested that MakanDay attach a covering letter before the requests could be accepted, even though the Regulations require requests to be made using Form I and do not expressly require a separate covering letter.
The experience raised a simple question: if Ministry officials could not identify the designated Information Officer, how would an ordinary citizen know where to submit an ATI request?
The Access to Information Act requires every public institution to designate an Information Officer responsible for receiving and processing requests.
Silence After Submission
Section 12 of the Act requires an information holder to decide within seven days whether to grant or refuse a request and to notify the applicant in writing.
No response came.
The Ministry neither informed MakanDay whether the requests had been granted nor refused access within the statutory period. By the time this story was published, no substantive response had been received.
After a long wait, MakanDay appealed to the Human Rights Commission (HRC), the institution responsible for overseeing implementation of the ATI Act.
In a letter dated 23 June 2026, the Commission advised MakanDay on the appeals procedure and indicated that it had written to the Ministry directing it to comply with the law. Despite the Commission’s intervention, the Ministry had still not responded by the time of publication.
Civil Society Reports Similar Experiences
MakanDay’s experience is not isolated.
The Alliance for Community Action (ACA) said that since February 2026 it has submitted five ATI requests to the Lusaka City Council, the Electoral Commission of Zambia and the Zambia Police Service seeking information on Constituency Development Fund projects, electoral delimitation reports, asset declarations and law enforcement procedures.
According to ACA, more than 130 days later, none of the institutions had disclosed the requested information despite acknowledging receipt of the requests. Even after resubmitting the applications using the prescribed forms following guidance from the Human Rights Commission, all five remained unresolved.
“Five requests, three institutions, more than 130 days, and two appeals later, we have received procedural engagement but zero substantive disclosures, indicating a significant gap between the Act’s provisions and its implementation on the ground,” ACA said.
The organisation cited inconsistent guidance from public institutions, failure to follow prescribed procedures and delays beyond the legal timelines.
While describing the ATI Act as a significant legal milestone, ACA said limited institutional capacity, inconsistent application of procedures and a longstanding culture of non-disclosure continue to undermine citizens’ right to information.
Need for Greater Awareness
The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) believes many of the implementation challenges stem from limited awareness of the law among both citizens and public officials.
Programme Officer Lombe Michael Kasanda said Information Officers and public servants responsible for processing requests require more training if the legislation is to achieve its intended purpose.
“If they don’t know, if they’re not familiar with how to process them, I think it’s a huge hurdle to access information,” Kasanda said.
JCTR also called on public institutions to proactively publish information rather than waiting for formal requests, noting that while the Ministry of Finance regularly discloses information on its website, many institutions have yet to adopt similar practices.
The organisation further urged increased funding for the Human Rights Commission to strengthen training and oversight.
From Landmark Law to Practical Challenge
Zambia’s campaign for an Access to Information law stretches back more than three decades. After several unsuccessful attempts under successive governments, Parliament finally passed the Access to Information Bill in December 2023, and President Hakainde Hichilema assented to it later that month.
The Act came into force on 25 June 2024 and was widely welcomed by journalists, civil society organisations and governance advocates as a major step towards greater transparency and accountability.
Yet the experiences documented by MakanDay and civil society organisations suggest that the law’s greatest challenge now lies not in its existence but in its implementation.
Confusion over designated Information Officers, additional administrative hurdles, missed statutory deadlines and prolonged silence from public institutions indicate that many government bodies have yet to adapt their practices to the requirements of the law.
Discover more from MAKANDAY
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
