IPPR defiant after Tweya barbs
Following the attack by the then information minister Tjekero Tweya on the IPPR's access to information report, the institute hit back, rebuking the minister's claims.
The barbed reaction by information and communication technology minister Tjekero Tweya to the findings of the ‘Access Denied’ report, highlighting the dire state of access to information in Namibia’s public and private sectors, has been met with disappointment and a firm rebuttal by its authors.
The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) on Tuesday promptly defended its report, which was published in December last year, and said is stands by the findings and research methods.
On Wednesday, in an official rebuttal to the minister’s comments, the IPPR noted that “there is no point in denying that access to information is problematic across different sectors of Namibian society”.
Tweya’s core criticism that the public watchdog had contacted the incorrect persons at ministries, which resulted in the high rate of non-responses, was rebuffed by the IPPR.
They highlighted the fact that permanent secretaries have consistently been identified by government directly, as the first line of contact for information from the media and the public.
The IPPR highlighted that the issue of access to information is a critical subject because of the “strong importance government attaches to making information available to the public, as expressed in the Harambee Prosperity Plan and the National Development Plan 5”.
Moreover, the institute’s Graham Hopwood underlined that the IPPR welcomes and encourages “constructive appraisals and criticism” of all their publications and findings and hoped that this would “lead to high-quality, informed debates about policy proposals and options”.
In light of this, the IPPR described Tweya’s attack on the report and his “blanket condemnation” as disappointing and unhelpful in achieving these goals.
Communication lip service
Namibia’s government institutions have been frequently and widely criticised for a lack of access to information and transparency by concerned organisations, locally and across borders.
The Access Denied report found that despite paying lip service to improving on this issue, “the state sector has continued to demonstrate a long evident aversion to any sort of significant or substantial openness”.
A unique finding of the report was that the issue is not limited to government institutions but “appears to stubbornly exist across most sectors of society, including in the private sector and civil society domains”.
The IPPR’s response yesterday pointed out that the findings also showed a serious lack of transparency and responsiveness from the private sector and civil society.
The report was “not simply aimed at exposing problems in government when it comes to access to information”, the IPPR emphasised.
Tweya’s fire and fury
Tweya this week claimed that the findings of the report initially shocked him, and he immediately ordered an investigation.
He noted that several government initiatives were undertaken recently to improve access to information at state institutions, including workshops.
Tweya claimed that the IPPR did not provide a list of names of the officials contacted during their research, at the request of his ministry, and that “this made it difficult for the ministry to follow-up”.
The IPPR denied this allegation.
They confirmed that after being contacted, a table of the officials contacted was provided to the ministry on 13 December.
“The official at the ministry who had been requesting the information responded via email later on 13 December by saying ‘thanks a million’. There was no further response from the ministry saying the information provided was not adequate in any way.”
Hopwood further disputed, and challenged Tweya’s remark that much of the information the IPPR sent to ministries and other government offices was available and “easily accessible” online.
“The IPPR’s researchers had checked official websites to see if the requested information was already available online. It would be helpful if the ministry could list the website addresses where all this information is available.”
Hopwood further pointed out that Tweya’s criticism that the IPPR contacted the incorrect persons only heightened the concerns about weak communication systems.
“It is difficult to accept the minister’s argument that the information requests should not have been sent to the permanent secretaries, but rather to the PR officers in each ministry, and that this somehow resulted in the high number of non-responses.”
Hopwood and his colleagues pointed out that this raised the concern that the permanent secretaries are not “capable of passing on information requests to the ministry public relations officers or other relevant officials”.
And, despite several follow-up phone calls and emails made by the researchers, most ministry’s and government institutions still failed to respond to the questions sent to them.
The IPPR underscored the fact that the requests made to officials were “carefully chosen to be non-controversial, so that there was no question of responses being denied on the grounds of security”.
JANA-MARI SMITH
The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) on Tuesday promptly defended its report, which was published in December last year, and said is stands by the findings and research methods.
On Wednesday, in an official rebuttal to the minister’s comments, the IPPR noted that “there is no point in denying that access to information is problematic across different sectors of Namibian society”.
Tweya’s core criticism that the public watchdog had contacted the incorrect persons at ministries, which resulted in the high rate of non-responses, was rebuffed by the IPPR.
They highlighted the fact that permanent secretaries have consistently been identified by government directly, as the first line of contact for information from the media and the public.
The IPPR highlighted that the issue of access to information is a critical subject because of the “strong importance government attaches to making information available to the public, as expressed in the Harambee Prosperity Plan and the National Development Plan 5”.
Moreover, the institute’s Graham Hopwood underlined that the IPPR welcomes and encourages “constructive appraisals and criticism” of all their publications and findings and hoped that this would “lead to high-quality, informed debates about policy proposals and options”.
In light of this, the IPPR described Tweya’s attack on the report and his “blanket condemnation” as disappointing and unhelpful in achieving these goals.
Communication lip service
Namibia’s government institutions have been frequently and widely criticised for a lack of access to information and transparency by concerned organisations, locally and across borders.
The Access Denied report found that despite paying lip service to improving on this issue, “the state sector has continued to demonstrate a long evident aversion to any sort of significant or substantial openness”.
A unique finding of the report was that the issue is not limited to government institutions but “appears to stubbornly exist across most sectors of society, including in the private sector and civil society domains”.
The IPPR’s response yesterday pointed out that the findings also showed a serious lack of transparency and responsiveness from the private sector and civil society.
The report was “not simply aimed at exposing problems in government when it comes to access to information”, the IPPR emphasised.
Tweya’s fire and fury
Tweya this week claimed that the findings of the report initially shocked him, and he immediately ordered an investigation.
He noted that several government initiatives were undertaken recently to improve access to information at state institutions, including workshops.
Tweya claimed that the IPPR did not provide a list of names of the officials contacted during their research, at the request of his ministry, and that “this made it difficult for the ministry to follow-up”.
The IPPR denied this allegation.
They confirmed that after being contacted, a table of the officials contacted was provided to the ministry on 13 December.
“The official at the ministry who had been requesting the information responded via email later on 13 December by saying ‘thanks a million’. There was no further response from the ministry saying the information provided was not adequate in any way.”
Hopwood further disputed, and challenged Tweya’s remark that much of the information the IPPR sent to ministries and other government offices was available and “easily accessible” online.
“The IPPR’s researchers had checked official websites to see if the requested information was already available online. It would be helpful if the ministry could list the website addresses where all this information is available.”
Hopwood further pointed out that Tweya’s criticism that the IPPR contacted the incorrect persons only heightened the concerns about weak communication systems.
“It is difficult to accept the minister’s argument that the information requests should not have been sent to the permanent secretaries, but rather to the PR officers in each ministry, and that this somehow resulted in the high number of non-responses.”
Hopwood and his colleagues pointed out that this raised the concern that the permanent secretaries are not “capable of passing on information requests to the ministry public relations officers or other relevant officials”.
And, despite several follow-up phone calls and emails made by the researchers, most ministry’s and government institutions still failed to respond to the questions sent to them.
The IPPR underscored the fact that the requests made to officials were “carefully chosen to be non-controversial, so that there was no question of responses being denied on the grounds of security”.
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article