10 HH 307-18 HC 4863/18 party requesting for a draft of the judge’s written judgment. He submitted that such a request was unreasonable because what was reasonable was for a party to request for the final judgment. Mr Kanengoni’s argument and the parallel of a draft judgment which he sought to draw, is not soundly based in law when one considers the factual scenario. I say so because a draft of a judicial officer’s judgment cannot be classified as “information held by the state or by any institution or agency of government.” What may be classified as information held would at best be the record of proceedings because what is captured in it is information given by and recorded from the litigants and their counsels. A draft judgment remains a draft susceptible to alteration or even a total discard by the judge, something the judge cannot do to information or evidence which the judge has recorded or captured during proceedings. The judge does not invite the public to scrutinize or verify a draft judgment as was done by the respondent respecting the Provisional Voters Roll. The upshot of the respondent’s refusal to accede to the applicant’s request was clearly expressed in its letter. The first point it made was that the production of the Voters Roll was an ongoing exercise until closed for purposes of the elections. I observe that the issue of voter registration and hence production of the Voters’ Roll, being an ongoing exercise is given in law. Section 26 A of the Electoral Act, as recently amended provides for the closure of the Voter’s Roll for registration of a voter or any claims arising from the roll. The Voters Roll is sealed and shut on publication of the Presidential proclamation of election dates as provided for in ss 38 and 39 of the Electoral Act. Any claims for registration as a voter or transfers of registrations must be lodged within 2 days of the publication of the proclamation. Any new registration would have to be for purposes of a next election. The respondent then indicated that, providing the applicant with copies of the Provisional Voters Roll would confuse stakeholders. The nature of the likely confusion was not spelt out. I read the respondent’s statement to mean nothing more than to say, “It is too early to provide you with the Provisional Voters Roll in the format it is in.” In other words, the respondent was taking the position that it was a matter within its discretion whether or not it was opportune or convenient to provide the applicant with the Provisional Voters Roll before effecting any corrections made following the inspection exercise. The rest of the respondent’s letter is difficult to logically follow and comprehend in making sense of the grounds for refusing to accede to the applicant’s request. The letter avers that “once