Non-librarians as managers: The case of state university libraries in Saudi Arabia

92 Pages·2013·1.31 MB·English

I F LA IFLA
Volume 39 Number 3 October 2013
Contents
Editorial
International variety 203
Stephen Parker
Articles
The death of the Right to Information Bill in Botswana 204
Emmanuel KopangBotlhale and Kaelo Molefhe
Non-librarians as managers: The case of state university libraries in Saudi Arabia 214
Zahiruddin Khurshid
Knowledge sharing behaviour influences: A study of Information Science and Library Management
faculties in Bangladesh 221
Md. AnwarulIslam, Mitsuru Ikeda and Md.Maidul Islam
Establishment of the Election Commission Library in Nepal 235
Ramesh Prajuli and SusanGarner
The information economy of Turkmenistan: A seven-year update 243
John V.Richardson Jr.
Enhancing awareness of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in academic libraries:
A Jamaican case study 251
SasekeaHarris
Establishing information literacy principles as a foundation for cross-curricular scholarly investigation
in England 262
Andrew K. Shenton
Abstracts 278
IFLA Journal
Offi cial Journal of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
ISSN 0340-0352 [print] 1745-2651 [online]
Published 4 times a year in March, June, October and December
Editor: Stephen Parker, Apt. 1C, Edifício Rosa dos Ventos, Rua Rosa Parracho 27,
Cascais 2750-778, Portugal. Email: [email protected]
Editorial Committee
Jerry W. Mansfield (Chair)
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Email: [email protected]
Sanjay Kumar Bihani,
High Commission of India, India House, Aldwych, London WC2B 4NA, UK. Email: [email protected]
Ben Gu,
National Library of China, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Email: [email protected]
Filiberto Felipe Martine z-Arellano,
University Center for Library Science Research, National Autonomous University of Mexico. Email: [email protected]
Ellen Ndeshi Namhila,
University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia. Email: [email protected]
Omnia M. Sadek,
Menufia University, Cairo, Egypt. Email: [email protected]
Réjean Savard,
École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Ludmila Tikhonova,
Russian State Library, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: [email protected]
Anna Maria Tammaro (Gover ning Board Liaison)
Università di Parma, Parma, Italy. Email: [email protected]
Stephen Parker (Portugal) (Editor, ex offi cio)
Email: [email protected]
Publisher
SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC.
Copyright © 2013 International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. UK: Apart from fair dealing for the purposes
of research or private study, or criticism or review, and only as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Acts 1988,
this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in
writing of the Publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the
Copyright Licensing Agency (www.cla.co.uk/). US: Authorization to photocopy journal material may be obtained directly from
SAGE Publications or through a licence from the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (www.copyright.com/). Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the Publishers at the address below.
Annual subscription (4 issues, 2013) Free to IFLA members. Non-members: full rate (includes electronic version) £223/$412.
Prices include postage. Full rate subscriptions include the right for members of the subscribing institution to access the
electronic content of the journal at no extra charge from SAGE. The content can be accessed online through a number of
electronic journal intermediaries, who may charge for access. Free e-mail alerts of contents listings are also available. For
full details visit the SAGE website: www.sagepublications.com
Student discounts, single issue rates and advertising details are available from SAGE, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London
EC1Y 1SP, UK. Tel: [phone]; fax [phone]; e-mail: [email protected]; website: www.
sagepublications.com. In North America from SAGE Publications, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359, USA. Periodicals
postage paid at Rahway, NJ. Postmaster: Send address corrections to IFLA Journal, c/o Mercury Airfreight International Ltd,
365 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001, USA.
Please visit http://ifl.sagepub.com and click on More about this journal, then Abstracting/indexing, to view a full list of data-
bases in which this journal is indexed.
Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, UK.
I FLA
Editorial
InternationalFederationof
LibraryAssociationsandInstitutions
International variety
39(3)203
ªTheAuthor(s)2013
Reprintsandpermission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI:10.1177/0340035213497901
ifla.sagepub.com
Stephen Parker
The papers in this issue present a varied and thor- inauguration of a unique library in Kathmandu under
oughlyinternationalviewofseveralaspectsoflibrary theauspicesoftheElectionCommissionNepal.With
and information management and services. the assistance of international agencies, the library
Thefirstpaper,‘ThedeathoftheRighttoInforma- centralized old archives into a new building, devel-
tion Bill in Botswana’, by Emmanuel Kopang oped new policies, trained staff and is actively seek-
Botlhale and Kaelo Molefhe, adopts a rights-based ing to broaden its clientele to reach beyond the city
approach to argue that the right to information is a boundary in the interests of promoting democratic
fundamentalhumanright.RighttoInformation(RTI) processes in this former monarchy.
covenants and acts facilitate the availability of infor- ToCentralAsia next,with‘The informationecon-
mation, but the developing world lags behind in this omyofTurkmenistan:Aseven-yearupdate’,byJohn
regard. Botswana doesnothave aRTI Act, and abill V. Richardson Jr. The paper organizes issues related
designedtocorrectthiswasrejectedbyparliamentin to the information economy in Turkmenistan using
April 2012. The paper draws three general lessons the STEPE model (social, technical, economic, polit-
emerge from this case, including the need for non- ical, and ecological matters). Such an analysis gives
state actors to lobby and advocate for democracy- insight into the likely future of the information econ-
enhancing legislation such as the RTI Act. omy in this country. Many of the observations focus
Thesecondpaper,byZahiruddinKhurshid,consid- on contrasts rather than similarities since the Presi-
ers the problems associated with ‘Non-librarians as dential library ban of June 2005, as reported in IFLA
managers:thecaseofstateuniversitylibrariesinSaudi Journal in a previous paper by this author.
Arabia’.Itdefines‘non-librarians’inthiscontextand Aconcernwiththeeducationsectorisreflectedinthe
asks whether they are suitable for high profile aca- last two papers. In ‘Enhancing awareness of science,
demic positions in state university libraries in Saudi technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
Arabia.Non-librarianswithnolibrarycredentialsface in school libraries: a Jamaican case study’, Sasekea
difficulties in managing libraries efficiently, and the Harrisdocumentsstrategiesthatcanbeusedtoenhance
paper suggests that university administrations should Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
sendhighlymotivatedlibrariansfordoctoralprograms (STEM)awarenessinacademiclibraries.Acasestudy
at leading library schools in North America and Eur- approach revealed six strategies that academic librar-
ope,replacingallnon-librarianswiththesecandidates ianscanimplementtargetingusers,non-usersandstaff.
whentheyreturnwiththeirprofessionalqualifications. ThisisthefirstpublicationontheinitiativesofaJamai-
WemovefurtherEastwiththenextpaper,‘Knowl- canacademiclibraryinpromotingtheSTEMconcept.
edgesharingbehaviourinfluences:astudyofInforma- The final paper, ‘Establishing information literacy
tion Science and Library Management faculties in principles as a foundation for cross-curricular scho-
Bangladesh’,byMd.AnwarulIslam,MitsuruIkedaand larlyinvestigationinEngland’,byAndrewKShenton,
Md. Maidul Islam. This study aims to measure the notesthatafundamentalproblemwiththeeducational
knowledge sharing behaviour of information science system in the United Kingdom is that the subject-
andlibrarymanagementeducatorsinBangladesh.The basedemphasisofthecurriculumleadstoaseparation
researchersfoundasignificantrelationshipbetweenthe in the teaching and learning of related skills. This
attitude of educators toward knowledge sharing and paper constructs a meta-model that unites material
theirintentiontoshareknowledge.Itisbelievedthatthe currently dispersed across England’s National Curri-
findings will assist knowledge managers charged with culum,anddrawsonthetotalityoftheassembledcon-
thedesignofflexibleknowledgesharingsystems. tent to outlinea series of genericskills. The structure
Still in South Asia, the next paper, ‘Establishment helps information professionals to recognize areas
of the Election Commission Library in Nepal’, by wheretheirparticularinterventionswillbemostben-
Ramesh Prajuli and Susan Garner, describes how the eficialintermsofpromotinginformationliteracyand
development of democracy in Nepal has seen the skills of interest to subject practitioners.
I FLA
Article
InternationalFederationof
LibraryAssociationsandInstitutions
The death of the Right to
39(3)204–213
ªTheAuthor(s)2013
Information Bill in Botswana Reprintsandpermission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI:10.1177/0340035213497673
ifla.sagepub.com
Emmanuel Kopang Botlhale and Kaelo Molefhe
UniversityofBotswana
Abstract
Adoptingarights-basedapproach,thispaperarguesthattherighttoinformationisafundamentalhumanright.
Hence, governments are obligated to make information available to citizens by signing Right to Information
(RTI) covenants and acts to facilitate the availability of information. The developing world lags behind in this
regardand,similarly,BotswanadoesnothaveaRTIAct.EffortstocorrectthiswerekilledinApril2012when
theRTIbillwasrejected.Thiswasaregressivestep;hence,Botswanafailedthedemocracytest.Hence,reason
musttriumphoverpartisanpoliticsforthebilltobepassed.Finallythreegenerallessonsemergefromthiscase;
(i) in dominant party systems, legislation reflects the interests of the ruling party; (ii) the need to strengthen
parliamentsindominantpartysystemstoentrenchdemocracy;and(iii)theneedfornon-stateactorstolobby
and advocate for democracy-enhancing legislation such the RTI act.
Keywords
right to information, human rights; legislation, political influence, Botswana
Introduction democracy is impossible. In their absence, elections
andthenotionofthewillofthepeoplehavenomean-
It is commonly held that democracy and transparency
ing, and government has the potential to become
are complements; that is, as public goods, they are
arbitrary and self-serving.
consumed together (Democracy Web 2012; Luhtanen
2006; Shapiro 2003; Rosendorff et al. 2011). On
Barrack Obama (2009a:1) and Farrukh Saleem
a confirmatory note, James Madison, in a letter to W.
(2010:1) confirm the above position. Obama holds
T.Barryon4August1822,statedthat‘apopularGov-
that‘‘ademocracyrequiresaccountability,andaccou-
ernment without popular information or the means of
ntability requires transparency’’. Similarly, Saleem
acquiringit, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy
statesthat‘‘transparencyisthemotherofdemocracy.
orperhapsboth.Knowledgewillforevergovernignor-
Two things: first, there can’t be democracy without
ance, and a people who mean to be their own Gover-
transparency. Second, democracy can’t allow the
nors must arm themselves with the power knowledge
murder of her own mother’’.
gives’’ (Democracy Web 2012: paragraph 1). At the
Amongstothers,theRTIlegislation,arequisitefor
same time, Democracy Web (2012: paragraph 2)
theexerciseofdemocracy(OrganizationofAmerican
underscores the complementarities between the two,
States2003),isusedtobegettransparency.Thus,open
stating:
societiespassRTIlawsand,asofJanuary2012,atleast
90 countries have done so (Right2INFO 2012). How
In a democracy, the principle of accountability holds
does RTI legislation enhance transparency? Political
that government officials–whether elected or appo-
theoryholdsthatman(i.e., a humanperson) was born
inted by those who have been elected–are responsible
free and, therefore, possesses natural rights (Hobbes
to the citizenry for their decisions and actions. Trans-
parencyrequiresthatthedecisionsandactionsofthose
ingovernmentareopentopublicscrutinyandthatthe
Correspondingauthor:
public has a right to access such information. Both Dr Emmanuel Kopang Botlhale, Department of Political Science
conceptsarecentraltotheveryideaofdemocraticgov- andAdministrativeStudies(PAS),UniversityofBotswana.
ernance. Without accountability and transparency, Email:[email protected]
Botlhale and Molefhe: The death of the Right to Information Bill in Botswana 205
1665). However, life under a state of nature was Info 2012). However, it is notable that the Zimbab-
untenable; it was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and wean RTI Act has been diluted by countermanding
short (ibid.), hence, man surrendered his/her natural acts, particularly the Access to Information and Pro-
rights to a sovereign in return for, amongst others, tection of Personal Privacy Act (2002), as to render
protection from internal and external enemies. it a good example of a bad RTI law (see Banisar
Hence,manandthesovereignenteredintoanagree- 2006; Darch and Underwood 2010). Similarly, Bots-
ment, commonly known as the social contract wana does not have a RTI Act save that section 12
(Hobbes 1665; Locke 1689; Rosseau 1789). It is of the Constitution of Botswana guarantees the free-
important to note that although man surrendered his dom of information. Notably, while the Constitution
natural rights to the sovereign, this does not mean guarantees the freedom of information, it does not
that the former is subservient to the latter. Ceteris grant access to same (Ndlovu 2012). However, this
paribus, the opposite is true; the former is senior to state of affairs was set to change with the tabling of
the latter. In other words, the citizens and govern- aRTIbillinApril2012(Botlhale2012a;2011).Since
ment have a principal-agent relationship; the former the bill was tabled by an opposition legislator, it was
and latter being principal and agent respectively. subjected to partisan debate that ensured its death.
Under this relationship, the agent acts on behalf of Given the topicality of this bill, the BDP (Botswana
the principal and, in the process, accumulates lots Democratic Party) scored an own political goal.
ofvitalinformation.Worthyofmention,thegovern- Therefore, if Botswana is to live up to its image of
ment holds the information on behalf of the public, anexemplarydemocracyinAfrica,theRTIBillmust
thus, public organizations are expected to provide be brought back to parliament soon.
access to the information subject to public interest Given the topicality of the RTI bill, it is important
limitations;e.g.,statesecurity.Thus,RTIlawsinsti- thatitbepartofpublicdiscourse.Laudably,members
tutionalize the right to information and engender ofthepublic,particularlynon-stateactors,havedialo-
transparency. Hence, Article 19 (1999) emphasizes gued on this matter. Particularly, the public’s interest
the centrality of information, saying: grew after the rejection of the RTI bill by parliament
on 16 August 2012 (Botswana Press Agency 2012a).
However, the matter does not find treatment in the
Information is the oxygen of democracy. If people do
Botswana-specific literature. Hence, this paper
not know what is happening in their society, if the
actions of those who rule them are hidden, then they intends to contribute to debates on this important
cannottakeameaningfulpartintheaffairsofthatsoci- piece of legislation.
ety.Butinformationisnotjustanecessityforpeople–it Having laid the above background, the paper pro-
isanessential part ofgoodgovernment. ceedsasfollows.Firstly,itdiscussestheinternational
underpinnings of RTIAs; secondly, it discusses the
Freedom of information is provided under Article importance of RTIAs; thirdly, it discusses attempts
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to introduce the RTI bill in Botswana and actions to
which definesitas thefreedom to‘‘seek, receive and kill the bill; and fourthly, it discusses lessons learnt
impart information and ideas through any media and from the RTI case and concludes.
regardlessof frontiers’’(UnitedNations 1948).Thus,
‘‘freedom of information is the principle that organi-
The external context of RTI
zations and governments have a duty to share or
providereadyaccesstoinformationtheyhold,toany- Freedomofinformationisafundamentalright(Banisar
one who wants it, based on the public’s right to be 2011; Bjo¨rkstrand and Mustonen 2006; Mendel 2008,
informed’’ (UNESCO 2011). It is legitimately 2003; Sendugwa 2011a). Hence, in its first session in
expected that governments facilitate the access to 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution
information through the promulgation of RTI Acts 59(I) stating; ‘‘freedom of informationis a fundamen-
and also the signing and ratification of supranational talhuman rightand ... thetouchstoneofallthefree-
RTI convenants. Sweden is the pioneer because she doms to which the United Nations is consecrated’’
passed the RTI Act in 1766, followed by Finland in (United Nations 1946). On 10 December 1948, the
1951 and the US in 1966. Afterward, there was an same body adopted the Universal Declaration of
explosioninthepassageofRTIlaws;however,Africa Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 underscores the
has largely lagged behind (Dimba 2008; UNESCO sanctity of the freedom of information. It states that
2008). Thus, only eight countries; Angola, Ethiopia, ‘‘everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
Guinea Conakry, Liberia, Nigeria, South Africa, expression; this right includes freedom to hold opi-
Uganda, Zimbabwe, have explicit RTI laws (Right2 nions without interference and to seek, receive and
206 IFLA Journal 39(3)
impart information and ideas through any media and PrinciplesonFreedomofExpressioninAfricainOcto-
regardless of frontiers’’ (United Nations 1948). This ber2002duringthe32ndSession,17–23October2002,
was followed by the UN General Assembly’s Res- inBanjul,TheGambia.TheDeclarationreaffirmsArti-
olution2200A(XXI)on16December1966(wentinto cle 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
force 23 March 1976) on the International Covenant Rights. Article IV (Freedom of Information) of the
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR Declarationisinstructive;(1)Publicbodiesholdinfor-
enjoins signatories to respect a number of human mationnotforthemselvesbutascustodiansofthepublic
rightssetout in theUDHR. Notably, Article 19ofthe goodandeveryonehasarighttoaccessthisinformation,
ICCPR,justliketheUDHR’sArticle19,isconcerned subjectonlytoclearlydefinedrulesestablishedbylaw.
with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Similarly,(2)statesthattherighttoinformationshallbe
Thus, Article 19 of the ICCPR states that ‘‘everyone guaranteed by law in accordance with some of the
shallhavetherighttofreedomofexpression;thisright following principles: everyone has the right to access
shallincludefreedomtoseek,receiveandimpartinfor- information held by public bodies; everyone has the
mation and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, right to access information held by private bodies
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, which is necessary for the exercise or protection of
or through any other media of his choice’’ (United any right; and that public bodies shall be required,
Nations 1966). even in the absence of a request, to actively publish
The Commonwealth is also a champion of the important information of significant public interest
RTIAs. To illustrate, the issue of access to informa- (African Union 2002).
tion was first explicitly expressed within the Com- In addition, there is the African Union’s African
monwealth grouping in 1980 when the Council of Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance
LawMinistersmetinBarbadosandissuedastatement which was adopted at the AU Assembly of the AU
affirmingthecentralityoftheRTIA.Thus,theCouncil on 30 January 2007. One of its objectives is the pro-
stated that in ‘‘public participation in the democratic motion of the establishment of the necessary condi-
and government process was at its most significant tions to foster citizen participation, transparency,
when citizens had adequate access to information’’ access to information, freedom of the press and
(CommonwealthHumanRightsInitiative1980:para- accountability in the management of public affairs
graphs 24–25). Afterward, in March 1999, the Com- (African Union 2007).
monwealth convened an Expert Group on freedom Finally, the Southern African Development Com-
of information which confirmed that; munity (SADC) has not lagged behind in promoting
the RTI cause. The SADC Council of Ministers met
in Johannesburg, from 25 to 26 August 1995, and
Freedom of information should be guaranteed as a
legal and enforceable right permitting every individ- adopted the SADC Declaration on Information and
ual to obtain records and information held by the Communication in Building the Southern African
executive, the legislative and the judicial arms of the Development Community. In this regard, article 1 of
state, as well as any government owned corporation the Declaration provides that
and any other body carrying out public functions
(Commonwealth Secretariat 1999:30– 31).
All Member States shall promote balanced dissemina-
tion of information, within the context of Community
Afterwards,theCommonwealthFreedomofInfor- building, and shall not impede freedom of speech nor
mation Principles and Guidelines were developed. impedethefreedomofexpressionofthepeoplesofthe
Consequently,theCommonwealthrecommendedthat community (Southern African Development Commu-
its members pass RTIAs based on the principles of nity1995: article1).
disclosure, promoting a culture of openness, limited
exemptions, records management, and a right of rev- Subsequently,sixSADCcountriesexplicitlyguaran-
iew. Finally, in 2003, the Commonwealth Secretariat teedtherighttoinformationwithintheirconstitutional
issuedamodelRTIbillthatwasbasedonRTIlawsin framework; South Africa, Malawi, Mozambique, the
Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth coun- DR Congo, Tanzania, and Madagascar. Eight other
tries (Banisar 2006). SADC countries, being Botswana, Lesotho, Angola,
ThenOrganisationoftheAfricanUnityplacedahigh Zambia, Mauritius, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and Swazi-
premium on RTI legislation, particularly, Article 9 of land, have only protected this right within the context
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. of the broader right of freedom of expression which
Similarly, the African Union’s (AU) Commission on normallyincludestherightto‘‘seek,receiveandimpart
Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a Declaration of information’’(Dimba2008:3).
Botlhale and Molefhe: The death of the Right to Information Bill in Botswana 207
Benefits of RTI legislation tests; (5) Requests for information should be pro-
cessedrapidly and fairly and an independent review
Ever since Sweden passed the first RTI law in 1776
of any refusals should be available; (6) Individuals
(AndersChydeniusFoundation2006),therehasbeen
should not be deterred from making requests for
an explosion in the passage of same in the 20th cen-
information by excessive costs; (7) Meetings of pub-
tury. Despite some regions, particularly Africa, lag-
lic bodies should be open to the public; (8) Laws
ging behind (Gender Links 2011; Open Society
which are inconsistent with the principle of maxi-
Foundation 2011; Sendugwa 2011b; UNESCO
mum disclosure should be amended or repealed; and
2008), there is a consensus on the benefits of RTIs.
(9) Individuals who release information on wrong-
Some of them are:
doing – whistleblowers – must be protected (Article
(cid:2) Making governments more transparent and 19 1999).
accountable to the people; increasing people’s Thus, at a minimum, governments are expected to
participationandinvolvementinpubliclifeand formulatetheirRTIlawswithregardtothisframework.
their own governance;
(cid:2) Makingprivate sectoractors moreaccountable
andresponsivetotheneedsofthecommunities Pro-active vs. reactive disclosure
they work in and to respect their human rights Members of the public can access public information
particularly the right to development; in four ways; (i) the information is voluntarily pro-
(cid:2) Improving the capacity of institutions to mini- vided by those who possess it (pro-active disclosure
mizeandexposecorruptioninallitsnumerous or push model); (ii) when members of the public
forms including nepotism; request and receive the information from those who
(cid:2) Improvingtheprocessesofdecisionmakingas possess it [reactive disclosure or pull model] (Darbi-
factualinformationandqualitydatainformthe shire 2010; Xiao 2010); (iii) leaks from whistle-
choice of priorities and resource allocation blowers and others (for example, cables from
decisions: Wikileaks); and (iv) open public meetings where
(cid:2) Exposinghumanrightsviolationsandensuring information is discussed and released in a public
thattheperpetratorsaremadeaccountable;and venue (Piotrowski and Van Ryzin 2007). In this
(cid:2) Makingiteasiertopromoteworkers’rightsand regard, the first two, pro-active and reactive disclo-
negotiating for better terms of service espe- sures of information, are provided under RTIAs
cially for women employees to achieve the (Ruijer2012),hence,thesewillbediscussedsincethe
work/social life balance (FEMNET 2009:3 – focus of this paper is on the RTIA.
seealsoArticle19[2005];Banisar[2006];and Oftentimes,aquestionarises,‘whichisbetter?Pro-
UNESCO [2011]). activeorreactivedisclosure?’Thereisanearconsen-
sus that pro-active is superior to reactive disclosure
Thus, it is important for governments to place a
because it offers an array of benefits. Principally, it
high premium on transparency as advised by Obama
results inpro-activetransparency which canbegiven
(2009b).Hesaid,‘informationmaintainedbytheFed-
effect through varied ways: (i) publications and offi-
eral Government is a national asset. My Administra-
cial gazettes; (ii) public notice boards; (iii) radio and
tion will take appropriate action, consistent with law
television announcements; and (iv) Internet postings
and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms
via awebsiteofapublicinstitution(Darbishire2010).
that the public can readily find and use (ibid. para-
Thus, pro-active disclosure is favoured by democra-
graph2).’Inordertoserveausefulpurpose,RTIlaws
cies that have model RTIAs. Amongst other things,
shouldbegearedtowardsinternationalprinciplesand
it addresses the accountability deficit; increases in
best practice (Puddephatt and Zausmer 2011). Cur-
governmental power unaccompanied by increased
rently, there are no universal principles; however,
accountability (e.g., see Roberts 2006 on this term).
Article 19, a non-state organization, has developed a
Pro-active disclosure confers a lot of benefits to
setofnineprinciplestoaddressthisdeficiency.These
countries that have such a provision in their RTIAs.
are:(1)Freedomofinformationlegislation shouldbe
Some of them are;
guided by the principle of maximum disclosure; (2)
Publicbodiesshouldbeunderanobligationtopublish (i) Limiting corruption: Publishing information
keyinformation; (3)Publicbodies mustactivelypro- about government actions and spending puts
moteopengovernment;(4)Exceptionsto therightto governmentandpublicofficialsunderthecon-
access information should be clearly and narrowly stant watch of the public, allowing them to
drawnandsubjecttostrict‘harm’and‘publicinterest’ trackwhatresourcesarespent,whocontracts
208 IFLA Journal 39(3)
are awarded to and so on (Puddephatt and ConsultativeCouncil(BMCC)offeredtohelpthegov-
Zausmer2011:6). ernmenttocraftaRTIlaw.TheBMCCarguedthatwe
(ii) The rule of law: Proactive disclosure ensures ‘‘wouldexpectthatanyRTIlegislationwillbedrafted
thatmembersofthepublicareinformedabout soastoencouragemoreopenandaccountablegovern-
thelawsanddecisionsthataffectthemandcon- mentbyestablishingageneralstatutoryrightofaccess
tributestotheruleoflaw(Darbishire2010:3). to official recordsand information’’ (Botswana Media
(iii) Accountability; it facilitates more accounta- Consultative Council, 1999: paragraph 3). Thus, it
ble spending of public funds and promotes arguedthattheRTIlawwouldprovideBatswanawith
integrity in government (ibid.). a new and fundamental right; The Right to Know.
(iv) Decision-Making; disclosure of data and Unfortunately, its offer fell on deaf ears.
policydocumentsensuresthatthepublichas On 25 August 2006, then MP for Lobatse, Nehe-
the information needed to participate in pol- miahModubule,calledfortheintroductionoftheRTI
icy- and decision-making (ibid.). Act when he was debating the Information Policy in
(v) AccessingGovernmentServices;dissemina- parliament (Botswana Press Agency, 2006). Modu-
tion by public bodies of information about bule asserted that the RTI act would ensure that the
how they function helps the public access public had access to information. Although Modu-
government services (ibid.). bule’s motion elicited no response from the govern-
(vi) Information Management; a further benefit ment, it, nonetheless, prompted a response from the
of proactive disclosure is that it encourages Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).
better information management, improves Then CHRI Director, Maja Daruwala, wrote a letter
a public authority’s internal information to then president, Festus Mogae, on 8 September
flows, and thereby contributes to increased 2006. The letter read:
efficiency (ibid.).
‘‘I wanted to take this opportunity to underline Mr.
Moubule’s calls to pass an Information Act as a key
RTI legislation in Botswana steptowardspromotingpublicaccountabilityandgood
governance in Botswana. I also wish to offer the sup-
Thereisanexplicitappreciationofthesignificanceof
port of CHRI’s RTI team to assist with any move by
a RTI law as instanced by members of the public your Government to develop a national Freedom of
demanding that same be included in Botswana laws Informationlaw,includingdraftingaBillthataccords
during public meetings of the 1997 Presidential Task withbestpracticeopennessprinciples... ‘‘(Common-
GrouponVision2016[Botswana’s longtermvision] wealth Human Rights Initiative 2006).
(Republic of Botswana 1997). The Task Group car-
ried out a series of consultations where citizens were TheletteradvisedMogaetopayheedtothefollow-
invited to make submissions on their aspirations for inginstrumentswhenhisgovernmentcraftedtheRTI
the future (ibid.). At the end of process, the govern- law:(i)CHRI’s2003Report,OpenSesame:Looking
mentformulatedVision2016;TowardsProsperityfor for the Right to Information in the Commonwealth;
All, the long-term vision for Botswana; a strategy to (ii)Article19’sPrinciplesonFreedomofInformation
propel its socio-economic and political development Legislation;(iii)AUCommissiononHumanandPeo-
into a competitive, winning and prosperous nation ple Rights’ Resolution on Freedom of Expression
to be achieved by year 2016 (Botswana Vision 2016 (2001);and(iv)CommonwealthFreedomofInforma-
Council,2010).TheVisionwaslaunchedbythethen tion Principles (1999). Apparently, the government
president, Ketumile Masire, on 30 September 1997 did not pay heed to this advice because it never
and the document has been distributed to all stake- attempted to pass a RTI act.
holders in the country for implementation. Finally, the Ombudsman (Republic of Botswana,
TheVisionisbasedonsevenpillarsandPillarOne 2008) and non-state actors; e.g., the Media Institute
is‘AnEducated,InformedNation’.Inordertorealize of Southern Africa [MISA] (Botswana chapter),
An Educated, Informed Nation, ‘‘Botswana must exhorted the government to pass a RTI law. Despite
introduce a freedom of information act to protect the multiple exhortations, the government was, nonethe-
rights of citizens to obtain and use information’’ less, not galvanized into action because the RTI bill
(BotswanaVision2016Council,2010:5).Despitethe did not enter the public policy-making agenda until
government’s avowal to pass a RTI law, this did not mid 2010. Thus, in July 2010, MP Dumelang Sales-
happen, hence, this actuated some to call for its hando requested parliament to allow him to table a
passage. For example, in 1999, the Botswana Media RTI bill as a private member’s bill.
Botlhale and Molefhe: The death of the Right to Information Bill in Botswana 209
On8July2010,theNationalAssemblyresolved,in (a) making available to the public, information
terms of Standing Order 60(2), to allow Saleshando abouttheoperationsofpublicauthoritiesand,
to bring before parliament a private member’s bill inparticular,ensuringthattherulesandprac-
allowing for the enactment of a RTIA (Republic of tices affecting members of the public in their
Botswana, 2010). Subsequent to parliament granting dealings with public authorities are readily
Saleshando the permission to present the RTI bill, available to persons affected by those rules
he worked with various stakeholders, including the and practices;
officeoftheAttorneyGeneral,tocraftthebill.Thus, (b) creating a general right of access to informa-
on 21 April 2011, the bill was discussed at a stake- tionindocumentaryforminthepossessionof
holders’ meeting organized by the Media Institute public authorities, limited only by the excep-
of Southern Africa (MISA) (Botswana chapter) tions and exemptions necessary for the pro-
(Motseta, 2011). After the conference, a task force tection of essential public interests and the
ofcivilsocietyactivistscomprisingBotswanaSecon- private and business affairs of persons in
darySchoolTeachersUnion’sExecutiveSecretary,a respectofwhominformationiscollectedand
former MISA-Botswana National Director, a univer- held by public authorities; and
sitylecturer,agenderactivistandfreelancejournalist, (c) creatingarighttobringabouttheamendment
was selected to assist in fine-tuning the RTI bill of records containing personal information
(ibid.). Notably, the task force was supposed to work that is incomplete, incorrect, misleading or
hand in hand with Saleshando and the latter was notrelevanttothepurposeforwhichthedoc-
tasked with presenting it in parliament in July 2011. ument is held (Republic of Botswana 2010).
Atthesametime,thebillbenefitedfromRTIexperts
such as Article 19, which stated that it welcomed the The other parts of the Bill are next summarized.
bill but noted the following concerns: Part II of the Bill provided for the right of access to
information. Part III of the Bill provided for the pub-
Firstly,thecompleteabsenceofanyprovisionsestablish- licationofcertaindocumentsandinformationbypub-
ing an institutional oversight mechanism which would lic authorities, including the requirement that certain
support the implementation of the draft law, such as an
documentsaretobemadeavailablebypublicauthor-
Information Ombudsman or Commissioner. Secondly,
ities for inspection and purchase (clause 22). Part IV
the draft law does not apply to the judiciary, and only
of the Bill dealt with the categories of exempt docu-
applies to certain public authorities, the President and
ments(e.g.Cabinetdocuments).Finally,PartVofthe
Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the President.
Billdealtwithmiscellaneousmatters(e.g.thedutyof
Thirdly, the draft law contains a long and elaborate list
public authorities to act in good faith; the correction
ofdocumentsthatareexemptedfromtheprincipleofdis-
closure... (IFEX2011:paragraph2). of personal information (clause 39) and the right to
apply for judicial review of an authority’s decision
Inconsequence,Article19advisedthattheRTIbill (ibid.).
providefortheestablishmentoftheofficeofanInfor- Due to timetabling issues, the bill was not tabled
mationCommissioner/Ombudsmantoresolvedisputes during the July sitting of parliament as Saleshando
concerningtherighttoinformation.Inaddition,itrec- had intended. Neither was the bill tabled during the
ommended that the bill should cover all branches of Novembersitting.However,itwasfinallytableddur-
government, including the executive arm of the gov- ing the February-April 2012 session. Debates got
ernment(notably,thePresident),thelegislature,judi- underway but were abruptly adjourned on 5 April
ciary and Commissions of Inquiry. Finally, that the when Mahalapye East MP, Botlogile Tshireletso,
draftlawshouldalsoprovidethatinformationmaynot tabledamotionseekinganadjournmentofthediscus-
beexemptedunlessthelegitimateinterestprotectedis sions to allow for more consultation and clarification
greater than the public interest in disseminating the of certain clauses (GabzFM 2012a; Makgapha
information (ibid.). Similarly, the bill was subjected 2012a). Notably, Tshireletso was supported by a
toacomprehensivereviewbyProfessorRickSnell,a majority of MPs, mostly from the ruling BDP. In
RTIexpertoftheUniversityofTasmaniaLawSchool, essence,theyarguedthattheywerenotagainstthebill
and he made some several suggestions in order to per se. Hence, they did not declare it DOA (Dead on
improvethebill(Mosikare,2011). Arrival); rather, they objected to certain provisions
After fine-tuning, the bill was finalized and it which they believed could be corrected (Botswana
aimed to extend the right of members of the public Press Agency 2012b). Expectedly, the bill’s mover,
to access information in the possession of public Saleshando, stated that he was disappointed by the
authorities by: postponement and argued that the bill was properly
210 IFLA Journal 39(3)
craftedbecauseheandthetaskforcefacilitatedwork- Botswana Constitution by opposition MP Maitshwar-
shops with regional experts on RTI legislation (Mak- eloDabuthain1988(itlateracceptedthemotionwhen
gapha 2012b). Thus, he stated that the reasons it was tabled by one of their own, Olifant Mfa, in
advanced for the postponement were ‘‘misplaced,’’ 2005).
andthat‘‘theBilldoesnotprotectpersonal andcom-
mercialinformationheldbygovernmentwasbaseless
Lessons learnt from the aborted RTI bill
as those issues are addressed in the Bill’’ (ibid.).
Whileonemaynotwanttoarrogatemaliceonefforts Therearethreekeylessonsthatcanbelearntfromthe
to adjourn debates on the RTI bill, it is perhaps wor- RTI bill debates. Firstly, in dominant party systems,
rying that, reportedly, a document bearing noofficial parliamentpasseslawsthatreflecttheinterestsofthe
seal was exclusively circulated to BDP MPs with the ruling party or, specifically, the executive arm of the
intention to encourage them to reject the Bill government (see also Botlhale 2012b). Thus, parlia-
(GabzFM 2012b; Makgapha 2012b). To date, the ment is weak and subject to the whims and caprices
authorofthesaiddocumentisunknownbutitisunde- of the executive. This is best instanced by debates
niablethatthedocumentwascirculatedtoBDPMPs. surrounding the motion calling for the declaration of
Aftertherejectionofthebill,Saleshandore-workedit assets and liabilities by national leaders. Dismissing
toaddresskeyconcernsraisedbysomeBDPMPs.Thus, the motion tabled by Dumelang Saleshando, then
he re-tabled the bill during July sitting (Makgapha Leader of the House and Vice President, Mompati
2012c).Itwasrejectedbyparliamenton16Augustwith Merafhe, told parliament that the government would
34 MPs (presumably, all BDP) voting against it (Bots- table a law on the disclosure of assets and liabilities
wanaPressAgency2012a;Moeng2012).Notably,the that would suit the BDP’s interests (Botswana Press
BDPMPswhostatedthattheydidnotobjecttothebill Agency2010a).Instructively,hesaid;‘‘asthemajor-
inAprilsuddenlyfoundfatalfaultswithit.Forinstance, ity party in Parliament, BDP will continue to dictate
someobjectedtoitbecauseitdidnotdefinekeyterms terms in the House’’ (ibid.:4).
suchaspublicinterest.Faultingthebaddraftingofthe Secondly and arising from the above, there is a
bill,MPPhanduSkelemani,aformerAttorneyGeneral, need for constitutional review in dominant party sys-
assertedthatitdidnotconformtothegovernment’sstyle tems.Thereviewisimperativeto,amongothers,cre-
ofwritinglawsandalsopointedoutafewclauseswhich ate a highly independent legislature along the US
he termed as ‘‘contradictory and illogical’’ (Seretse model to circumscribe the powers of the executive.
2011:8).Inaddition,hechargedthatthebillwasdrafted In most instances, the executive is loth to account to
withthehelpofforeigners.Finally,oneBDPMP,Guma the public through parliament. As a result, it does all
Moyo, asserted that the office of the Attorney General initspowertoengendersecrecybyblockingRTIleg-
advisedhimtorejectthebillbecauseitwasbadandthat islation. In cases where the RTI law already exists, it
it would encroach into other laws (ibid.). Thus, due to passes a countervailing law, as South Africa did with
politics,theBDPMPsthrewoutthebabywiththebath- thepassageoftheProtectionofStateInformationAct
water.Reportedly,theBDPwilltableafriendlyRTIbill (2012).TheActhastheeffectofdilutinganotherwise
andalsopassaRTI-undermininginstrumentintheform goodRTIlaw.Thishappensbecausetheparliamentis
of a Data Protection Act (Makgapha 2011d). Notably, dominated by the African National Congress. Hence,
the envisaged Data Protection Act will have the same ifparliamentisindependent,itcandeependemocracy
effectasZimbabwe’sAccesstoInformationandProtec- by, among others, passing RTI laws and rejecting
tionofPersonalPrivacyAct(2002)andSouthAfrica’s state data protection laws.
ProtectionofStateInformationAct(2012). Thirdly, non-state actors have a duty to advocate
The rejection of the bill signalled the end of the andlobbyfordemocracy-enhancinglaws,particularly
road for Saleshando; the BDP killed the bill. Beyond in a situation where there is an unequal relationship
parliament, non-state actors, e.g. MISA-Botswana, between parliament and the executive. In this case,
expressed their disappointment with the rejection of they must take the lead in the passage of RTI laws.
the bill (Mmegi 2012). In the case of Botswana, most non-state stators
However, the RTI imbroglioistypical ofBDP pol- adopted a reactive stance towards the promulgation
itics;killingbillsthatdonotfindfavourwithit.Exam- of the bill. Thus, their voices were heard after the
ples abound: rejection of a bill on the declaration of rejectionoftheRTIbillbyparliament.Hadtheybeen
assets and liabilities by all national leaders tabled by proactive, for instance by sponsoring the legislation
DumelangSaleshandoin2010(GabathuseandMotlo- and also lobbying the nation, the outcome, perhaps,
gelwa2010;BotswanaPressAgency2010a,b,c,d)and would have been different. Thus, although the BDP
motion on the amendment of sections 77-79 of the has ahabit of rejecting bills that arenot in its favour,