The purpose of this study was to investigate disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique, with a view to conceptualise a framework for disposal of personal identification information.
A multi-method approach was followed in this study. A survey research design, involving the use of a questionnaire as the main tool of collecting data, was triangulated with tools of qualitative data collection such as content analysis, interviews and observation. The target population of the study was 2,790 civil servants in 24 government bodies, from which a sample of 247 was drawn for the questionnaire using stratified random sampling. The sample size was determined using Raosoft sample size calculator based on a 5% margin of error and sample size confidence level of 90%. Purposive sampling was applied for interview participants to target senior officials with extensive knowledge.
This study found that, in Mozambique, public government agencies do not have strategies for the disposal of personal identification records. This places the confidentiality of such records at risk. Government agencies do not comply with legislative frameworks pertaining to records disposal since even their records management policies do not cover procedures for records disposal.
The results and recommendations of this study provide information that may be used by the organisations as a benchmark in the development of policies, procedures and standards for the disposal of personal identification information.
This study will help organisations to practise and experience the smooth and proper disposal of personal identification information that is error and risk free, provided the framework proposed by this study is properly implemented in the development of disposal policy and procedures.
With the proper disposal of personal identification information that is error and risk free, organisations will be able to avoid risks relating to personal information safety and security. They will be able to avoid information leaking into the wrong hands during the disposal process and this will also ensure that only the right information due for disposal is disposed of. There will be no accidental disposal of the wrong information or records.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study on disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique. As part of this study, a framework for personal identification information disposal strategies was provided. This framework is intended to provide a benchmark for disposal of personal identification information.
Introduction and background
Disposal strategies for personal identification information are critical to ensure that this information is safe and secured from any unauthorised parties. Personal identification information is more critical than any other information in an organisation because it affects individual customers directly and may lead to victimisation through fraud, scams and other crimes if it ends up in the wrong hands. This study focused on the establishment of strategies for the disposal of personal identification information in the public sector of Mozambique. The level of understanding and appropriate implementation of the current legislative framework regarding the disposal of recorded information was investigated, including the schedule for the retention, destruction and transfer of personal identification information in both the paper-based and electronic environments. Disposition or disposal refers to the processes linked to the implementation of decisions on the retention and destruction or transfer of records in compliance with the prescribed rules. These decisions are often documented in a disposition authority or in other instruments (Simwaka et al., 2023a; ISO 15489-1, 2016). A disposition authority is an instrument that defines the actions authorised for specific records to be transferred into the custody of national archives or to be otherwise disposed of according to an agenda (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Information or records disposal forms part of records management (Simwaka and Malanga, 2023; Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; Mosweu, 2018). Moreover, disposition is seen as an indispensable part of records management (Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; IRMT, 2009a; National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018). Ngoepe (2008) explains that disposition entails assessing groups of records (transfer classes) and allotting them a common retention period and a date of final disposal (preservation or destruction). This process includes recognising and monitoring the retention period for the records and activating a disposal event when the retention period lapses. Moreover, it incorporates the secure destruction of the records (Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023).
Since the actions that form part of disposition are dynamic and not static, they should be reviewed over time prior to their implementation. The revision should be carried out to ensure that the requirements for the integrity of records are met (Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; ISO 15489-1, 2016). This can be enhanced by innovation and should be coordinated across all applications, data warehouses and repositories. The disposition processes should thus be assessed frequently and connected reliably to guarantee the adequacy of, and critical improvements to, the expressed objectives of the organisation in question (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; US National Archives and Administration, 2019). The conclusion of Kalusopa’s (2011) research was that most organisations were clogging their record-keeping systems and tended to keep records forever since there were no retention plans.
Records can be disposed of in files, sub-files and volumes, according to an organisation’s business requirements (Moreq2, 2008). These records are kept in records storage areas until they reach the disposal period. A retention schedule guides how and when the records should be moved from active to inactive records storage (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; Farrell, 2024; Moreq2, 2008; Ngoepe, 2014; Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011). The records management departments of organisations often develop or document and maintain records retention schedules to identify official organisational records. By following a retention schedule, an organisation can ensure business continuity that creates enduring legal and fiscal value (Farrell, 2024; Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011; Ismail and Jamaludin, 2009; Moreq2, 2008; Chinyemba and Ngulube, 2005; Ngoepe, 2014; Nengomasha, 2013; Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011). According to Malatji and Marutha (2025), Fischer (2017) and IRMT (1999b), the time periods of records should be monitored to meet organisations’ legal, regulatory and operational requirements.
Records or information retention plans depend on the types of records, as well as the business, legal and compliance prerequisites of the information contained in records (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Kalusopa et al., 2021; Mosweu, 2021; Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; Rouse, 2016). According to Pereira (2018), such plans are decided according to data type and ownership and aspects such as the business value of data and related regulatory compliance mandates. Retention plans frequently explain the business reason for holding specific records and what ought to be done with the information when it is qualified for transfer, that is, the destruction of records or the transfer of records to an archival repository for permanent preservation of records (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Pereira, 2018; Rouse, 2016).
A retention schedule forms part of a policy that determines for how long information must be kept and that provides disposal guidelines regarding how data items ought to be disposed of (Kalusopa et al., 2021; Mosweu, 2021; Mosweu and Bwalya, 2022; ISO 15489-1, 2016; National Archives of United Kingdom, 2011). A records disposal policy can be a separate document, or it can be dealt with in one organisational records management policy. Such a policy often serves as an introduction to a more detailed document, such as a disposal plan in the case of a large organisation (Ngoepe et al., 2020; Malatji and Marutha, 2025; National Archives of the UK, 2011). A disposal plan includes a records retention policy, which is an organisation’s established protocol for the retention of information or regulatory compliance needs, as well as procedures regarding the disposal of information (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Farrell, 2024; Rouse, 2016; National Health Service of Wales, 2018). When an information retention policy is drawn up, it is vital to decide how data is to be organised so that it can be searched for and accessed later and disposed of when it is no longer required. Some organisations use a data retention policy as a framework when creating an information retention policy.
In recent years, the destruction of information within organisations has been regulated by laws and regulations. In other words, laws and regulations regulate the manner in which information is destroyed when an organisation needs to do so. These regulations normally do not require the destruction of data, but they are applied to the destruction of personal data. The selection of the method to be used for the destruction of information is based on the specific security requirements. If an organisation is under litigation, defensible deletion is the preferred tactic because it leads to a reduction in discovery costs and legal fees. An additional advantage of a defensible deletion programme is that it makes an organisation more information efficient by reducing the amount of outdated and irrelevant information that users have to sift through to get work done (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Farrell, 2024; Barrenechea, 2013).
Records should be destroyed in a way that ensures their complete destruction. This process must comply with any security or access restrictions on the records. The destruction of records, like any disposition action, should be documented (Tintswalo et al., 2021; Malatji and Marutha, 2025; ISO 15489-1, 2016). Following the same argument, the Library and Archivist of Canada Act, Canada (2004) states that no government record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, “shall be destroyed, without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist”. A national archivist has the power to delegate the authority to give consent for the destruction of government records to another person in writing.
Regarding the disposition stage, Kalusopa (2011) and Malatji and Marutha (2025) state that records decline in value to a point where those with no permanent value to an organisation should be destroyed. A disposition authority that oversees the removal of records from operational systems ought to be connected to records in a systematic and routine way, within the run of typical business activities. A record ought not to be disposed of without confirmation that the record is not required. In addition, no records with any currently pending case or examination as proof can be destroyed (Farrell, 2024; ISO 15489-1, 2016). Organisations with a thorough understanding of the requirements of records disposal can implement adequate defensive systems. According to ISO 15489-1 (2016), the destruction of records entails the process of eliminating or deleting records with no possibility of their reconstruction. If adequate safeguards or defensive mechanisms are in place, records can be protected against theft, deliberate or unintentional damage, or destruction (Al-Alawi, 2025; Ngulube, 2005).
The alternative to destruction, namely the transfer of archives, refers to the movement of records with enduring historical or permanent value from one storage space to another, for example from current storage to semi-current archives (Arquivo Nacional do Brasil, 2005). The term “transfer” is also applied when records are moved from semi-current archives to archive repositories or national archives (Al-Alawi, 2025; The Republic of Latvia, 2010; ICA, 2004; National Archives of the National Archives of United Kingdom, 2018; Shepherd and Yeo, 2003; IRMT, 1999a).
The effective and timely management of both the disposal and transfer of records is linked to various theories or concepts. According to Ngulube and Tafor (2006), the life cycle theory or concept of records is commonly used as a framework for the public sector within member countries of the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch (Esarbica) of the International Council on Archives (ICA). The life cycle concept was developed in the USA in 1934 (Munetsi, 2011). This concept denotes that recorded information has a life that is similar to that of a biological organism, in that it is born (creation phase), lives (maintenance and use phase) and dies (disposition phase). The transfer process that forms part of the concept should comply with national laws, regulations, guidelines and procedures. This concept is operationalised through a retention schedule that determines the periods and the dates for the transfer of records (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Al-Alawi, 2025; ICA, 2004).
According to Saurombe (2016) and the National Archives of the National Archives of United Kingdom (2018), the mission statement of national archives is mostly related to concepts such as “preserving”, “managing” and “providing access to information”. According to the ICA (2004), a mission statement is a statement from a “national organisation with authority to take care of records or archives”. Ceeney (2008) indicate that the key role of archives is related to record-keeping, which covers the acquisition, appraisal, arrangement and description of resources, as well as access to or the use of those resources. The mission statement of national archives is based on the legislation of the relevant country – the legislation provides a framework for the functions of the national archives. It is clear, therefore, that the mission statement and the functions of national archives are linked because the mission statement influences the implementation of the functions (Saurombe, 2016; IRMT, 1999b).
Most countries have legislation regarding the transfer of information to a repository or national archives. This legislation is produced mainly as records and archives Acts, such as in the United Kingdom (1958) (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Farrell, 2024; United Kingdom, 1958), Canada (2004), Australia (1983), Republic of South Africa (1996), Republic of Kenya (2019), The Republic of Latvia (2010) and United States (1950). These Acts are often amended over time. Records and archives Acts are implemented through regulations, policies, guidelines and procedures (National Archives of the UK, 2017; Canada, 2004; South Africa, 1996; The Republic of Latvia, 2010). All government and private bodies in a country are obliged to transfer records to the national archives in accordance with regulations related to that country.
Policies facilitate the transfer of records to national archives. Policies on the transfer of personal information give staff guidance on how to transfer personal information securely in line with best practice and legislative requirements, an example being the use of safe-haven faxes and encryption (Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Farrell, 2024; Bates, 2012). A further example is section 13(2)(a) of the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa (NARSSA) Act (South Africa, 1996), which states that no public record should be transferred without the written authorisation of the National Archivist. Edwards and Batten (2012) note that when it comes to the transfer of information, certain considerations, such as the purpose of and compliance with legislation and security requirements, must be taken into account to facilitate correct handling. According to the Kingston Clinical Commissioning Group (2018), a transfer process must identify adequate methods and inherent risks of transfer, how a transfer is confirmed and completed and security standards. In addition, Kalusopa (2011) points out that the effective management of records requires that procedures be put in place for the opportune transfer of records that are not required to support the current business or those that do not need to be held for legacy purposes.
Archival institutions also produce specific guidelines and procedures for effective and efficient records management, including records transfer processes (National Archives of the UK, 2017; University of Bristol, 2018). This guidance is produced for records management staff of all government departments and agencies that transfer records to national archives. At the National Archives of the UK, the Department of Records Officers and records management staff are responsible for preparing records to ensure that they comply with the National Archives’ standards prior to transfer (National Archives of the National Archives of United Kingdom, 2018). The responsibilities of the National Archives are assigned to the Transfer Adviser, the Transfer Team and Collection Care (National Archives of the UK, 2017). Specific archival materials, such as box reference labels, closure labels, dummy cards, yellow and black warning tape and warning stickers, should be made available for the transfer of records (ICA, 2004). The National Archives of the UK (2017) regards the physical preparation of records for transfer as a critical issue.
The International Records Management Trust (IRMT) (2009b) points out that digital records have a short lifespan. Therefore, the disposal of these records should be carried out in ways that serve the needs of organisations (Farrell, 2024; IRMT, 2009b). The processes involved in the retention and the disposal of records should be taken into consideration in the design of the records management system (Al-Alawi, 2025; Malatji and Marutha, 2025; Farrell, 2024; Ndenje-Sichalwe, Ngulube and Stilwell, 2011). Thus, a records management system should include an automatic alert for the disposal of records, as well as an audit trail indicating disposed records and outstanding records for disposal.
An electronic records management system (ERMS) makes provision for the retention and disposal of electronic records. The information technology (IT) team of an organisation is required to work with the legal team to design and implement an information retention policy, particularly with regard to compliance with legislation. The legal team will have a better understanding of the length of time for which information must be held in terms of the law, whereas the IT team is responsible for the implementation of the policy. The two teams should work together to create the information retention policy carefully to ensure that a file created decades ago will not be deleted automatically after a certain length of time (Awaken Group, 2016) since the old file could contain valuable data or could even be a crucial contract that the organisation must preserve.
The National Archives of Australia prioritises the transfer of digital material according to the content, age and quantity of records (National Archives of Australia, 2011). By contrast, the National Archives of the UK focuses on “supporting government departments in developing their digital capacity for the transfer of born-digital records” for permanent preservation (Al-Alawi, 2025; National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018). Digital records thus remain the greatest challenge for the UK’s National Archives, but the digital strategy, which was published in March 2017, sets out guidelines in this regard. To implement the digital strategy, the UK’s National Archives continued working “closely with other leading national archives, including the USA (USA), Canada, and Australia, to share insights and learning” (National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018). In addition, the Forum of National Archivists provides an opportunity for sharing learning experiences across national archives in the arena of digital records (National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018) with a view to bringing together and securing the future of both digital and physical records for future generations.
With regard to the situation in Southern Africa, South Africa has implemented an electronic records management policy that is guided by a proper disposal authority. Asogwa (2012) points out that this scenario or situation differs from that in other African countries, such as Botswana, Kenya and Zimbabwe, which have not yet managed to develop their own disposal authority for electronic records.
The main problem that led to this study was non-compliance with the Mozambique Civil Personal Identification Information Code Act 12 of 2004 (Malunga and Oliveira, 2005) and the legislative framework for records and archives management, specifically regarding matters related to disposal. The current records management practices exhibit a lack of a proper records management programme within civil personal identification information agencies. Ngoepe (2014), ISO 15489-1 (2016) and Shepherd (2006) highlight that the failure to create secure and authentic records could lead to serious shortcomings that are exhibited in deficient legislative compliance, which could be exacerbated by a lack of detailed procedures regarding the retention schedule for records, the destruction of records and the transfer of records from government bodies to the Mozambique Historical Archives. The Central State Records Management Department has not established permanent archives at central and provincial levels to ensure the long-term preservation of personal identification records and their accessibility to users. In addition, provincial government agencies have not established records appraisal committees for personal identification records. As a result, public government agencies have to carry out records appraisal processes for a large volume of records that have not been appraised in a long time. A revised or updated legislative framework that could be relied upon to ensure the timeous retrieval of information or provision of records upon citizens’ requests is lacking. Furthermore, the produced records may not be used as evidence to support business continuity (Shepherd, 2006; Ngoepe, 2014).
Purpose and objectives of the study
The purpose of the study was to investigate disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique. The objective of the study was to determine the availability of disposal strategies for personal identification records within government agencies in Mozambique.
Literature review
Literature review sources were searched systematically using the key concepts of the study. Searches were done through the Google search engine and databases for journal articles. The Google search engine resulted in sources accompanied by abstracts to guide the researcher on the relevancy of each source to the study. Only sources relevant to addressing the objective of the study were opened for analysis and reviewing. Normally searches yield many sources but others were eliminated based on the relevancy as guided by abstracts. Mostly the focus was on those sources that addressed the disposal of personal identification information.
“Records retention and disposal are significant management practices” (Simwaka and Malanga, 2023:127) Disposition or disposal refers to the processes linked to the implementation of decisions on the retention and destruction or transfer of records in compliance with the prescribed rules. “Disposition of records is an equally vital practice in records management” (Simwaka et al., 2023a:177). These decisions are often documented in a disposition authority or in other instruments (National Archives of the UK, 2017; ISO 15489-1, 2016). A disposition authority is an instrument that defines the actions authorised for specific records to be transferred into the custody of national archives or to be otherwise disposed of according to an agenda (South Africa, 1996). Archival law in many countries clearly shows that information must not be disposed of without authorisation, whether erasure, deletion or destruction of any kind. The national archives of the country is responsible for issuing disposal authority to organisations after application (Shibambu and Marutha, 2022; Netshakhuma, 2020). Information or records disposal forms part of records management (Mosweu, 2018; Luthuli and Ngoepe, 2024). Moreover, disposition is seen as an indispensable part of records management (IRMT, 2009b; National Archives of the UK, 2011). Ngoepe (2008) explains that disposition entails assessing groups of records (transfer classes) and allotting them a common retention period and a date of final disposal (preservation or destruction). This process includes recognising and monitoring the retention period for the records and activating a disposal event when the retention period lapses. Moreover, it incorporates the secure destruction of the records.
Organisations must also create policy and retention schedules for information disposal and archival institutions need to provide maximum support (Netshakhuma, 2020; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). Since the actions that form part of disposition are dynamic and not static, they should be reviewed over time prior to their implementation. The revision should be carried out to ensure that the requirements for the integrity of records are met (ISO 15489-1, 2016; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). This can be enhanced by innovation and should be coordinated across all applications, data warehouses and repositories. The disposition processes should thus be assessed frequently and connected reliably to guarantee the adequacy of, and critical improvements to, the expressed objectives of the organisation in question (US National Archives and Administration, 2019; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). The conclusion of Kalusopa’s (2011) research in Botswana was that most organisations were clogging their record-keeping systems and tended to keep records forever since there were no retention plans (Kalusopa, 2011).
Disposal of physical information
Records can be disposed of in files, sub-files and volumes, according to an organisation’s business requirements (Moreq2, 2008). These records are kept in records storage areas until they reach the disposal period. A retention schedule guides how and when the records should be moved from active to inactive records storage (Moreq2, 2008; Ngoepe, 2014; Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011). The records management departments of organisations often develop or document and maintain records retention schedules to identify official organisational records. By following a retention schedule, an organisation can ensure business continuity that creates enduring legal and fiscal value (Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011; Ismail and Jamaludin, 2009; Moreq2, 2008; Chinyemba and Ngulube, 2005; Ngoepe, 2014; Nengomasha, 2013). According to Fischer (2017) and IRMT (1999b), the time periods of records should be monitored to meet organisations’ legal, regulatory and operational requirements.
Records or information retention plans depend on the types of records, as well as the business, legal and compliance prerequisites of the information contained in records (Rouse, 2016). According to Pereira (2018), such plans are decided according to data type and ownership and aspects such as the business value of data and related regulatory compliance mandates. Retention plans frequently explain the business reason for holding specific records and what ought to be done with the information when it is qualified for transfer, that is, the destruction of records or the transfer or records to an archival repository for permanent preservation (Pereira, 2018; Rouse, 2016).
A retention schedule forms part of a policy that determines for how long information must be kept and provides disposal guidelines regarding how data items ought to be disposed of (ISO 15489-1, 2016; National Archives of the UK, 2011). A records disposal policy can be a separate document or it can be dealt with in one organisational records management policy. Such a policy often serves as an introduction to a more detailed document, such as a disposal plan in the case of a large organisation (National Archives of the UK, 2011). A disposal plan includes a records retention policy, which is an organisation’s established protocol for the retention of information or regulatory compliance needs, as well as procedures regarding the disposal of information (Rouse, 2016; National Health Service of Wales, 2018; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). When an information retention policy is drawn up, it is vital to decide how data are to be organised so that it can be searched for and accessed later and disposed of when it is no longer required. Some organisations use a data retention policy as a framework when creating an information retention policy.
In recent years, the destruction of information within organisations has been regulated by laws and regulations. In other words, laws and regulations regulate the manner in which information is destroyed when an organisation needs to do so. These regulations normally do not require the destruction of data, but they are applied to the destruction of personal data. The selection of the method to be used for the destruction of information is based on the specific security requirements. If an organisation is under litigation, defensible deletion is the preferred tactic because it leads to a reduction in discovery costs and legal fees. An additional advantage of a defensible deletion programme is that it makes an organisation more information efficient by reducing the amount of outdated and irrelevant information that users have to sift through to get work done (Barrenechea, 2013).
Records should be destroyed in a way that ensures their complete destruction. This process must comply with any security or access restrictions on the records. The destruction of records, like any disposition action, should be documented (ISO 15489-1, 2016; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). Following the same argument, the Library and Archivist of Canada Act (2004) states that no government record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, “shall be destroyed, without the written consent of the Librarian and Archivist”. A national archivist has the power to give consent for the destruction of government records to another person in writing.
Regarding the disposition stage, Kalusopa (2011) states that records decline in value to a point where those with no permanent value to an organisation should be destroyed. A disposition authority that oversees the removal of records from operational systems ought to be connected to records in a systematic and routine way, within the run of typical business activities. A record ought not to be disposed of without confirmation that the record is not required. In addition, no record with a pending case or examination can be destroyed (Netshakhuma, 2020; ISO 15489-1, 2016, Area, 9.9). Organisations with a thorough understanding of the requirements of records disposal can implement adequate defensive systems. According to ISO 15489-1 (2016), the destruction of records entails the process of eliminating or deleting records with no possibility of their reconstruction. If adequate safeguards or defensive mechanisms are in place, records can be protected against theft, deliberate or unintentional damage, or destruction (Ngulube, 2003; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023).
The alternative to destruction, namely the transfer of archives, refers to the movement of records with enduring historical or permanent value from one storage space to another, for example from current storage to semi-current archives (Arquivo Nacional do Brasil, 2005). The term “transfer” is also applied when records are moved from semi-current archives to archive repositories or national archives (The Republic of Latvia, 2010; National Archives of the UK, 2017; Shepherd and Yeo, 2003; IRMT, 1999a).
The effective and timely management of both the disposal and transfer of records is linked to various theories or concepts. According to Ngulube and Tafor (2006), the life cycle theory or concept of records is commonly used as a framework for the public sector within member countries of the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Branch (Esarbica) of the ICA. The life cycle concept was developed in the USA in 1934 (Webster, 1999). This concept denotes that recorded information has a life that is similar to that of a biological organism, in that it is born (creation phase), lives (maintenance and use phase) and dies (disposition phase). The transfer process that forms part of the concept should comply with national laws, regulations, guidelines and procedures. This concept is operationalised through a retention schedule that determines the periods and the dates for the transfer of records (ICA, 2004).
According to Saurombe (2016) and the National Archives of the United Kingdom (2018), the mission statement of national archives is mostly related to concepts such as “preserving”, “managing” and “providing access to information”. According to the ICA (2004), a mission statement is a statement from a “national organisation with authority to take care of records or archives”. Ceeney (2008) and the ICA (2011) indicate that the key role of archives is related to record-keeping, which covers the acquisition, appraisal, arrangement and description of resources, as well as access to or the use of those resources. The mission statement of national archives is based on the legislation of the relevant country – the legislation provides a framework for the functions of the national archives. It is clear, therefore, that the mission statement and the functions of national archives are linked because the mission statement influences the implementation of the functions (Saurombe, 2016; IRMT, 1999b).
Most countries have legislation regarding the transfer of information to a repository or national archives. This legislation is produced mainly as records and archives Acts, such as in the United Kingdom (1958), Canada (2004), Australia (1983), South Africa (1996), Kenya (2019), Latvia (2010) and the United States (1950). These Acts are often amended over time. Records and archives Acts are implemented through regulations, policies, guidelines and procedures (National Archives of the UK, 2017; Canada, 2004; South Africa, 1996; The Republic of Latvia, 2010). All government and private bodies in a country are obliged to transfer records to the national archives in accordance with regulations related to that country.
Policies facilitate the transfer of records to national archives. Policies on the transfer of personal information give staff guidance on how to transfer personal information securely in line with best practice and legislative requirements, an example being the use of safe-haven faxes and encryption (Bates, 2012; Netshakhuma, 2020; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). A further example is section 13(2)(a) of the NARSSA Act (South Africa, 1996), which states that no public record should be transferred without the written authorisation of the National Archivist. According to Simon Fraser University Archives (2019), transferring information requires that certain considerations, such as the purpose of and compliance with the relevant retention schedule, legislation and security requirements, be taken into account to facilitate correct handling (Bates, 2012). According to the Kingston Clinical Commissioning Group (2018), a transfer process must identify adequate methods and inherent risks of transfer, how a transfer is confirmed and completed and security standards. In addition, Kalusopa (2011) points out that the effective management of records requires that procedures be put in place for the opportune transfer of records that are not required to support the current business or those that do not need to be held for legacy purposes.
Archival institutions also produce specific guidelines and procedures for effective and efficient records management, including records transfer processes (National Archives of the UK, 2017; University of Bristol, 2018; Simwaka and Malanga, 2023). This guidance is produced for records management staff of all government departments and agencies that transfer records to national archives. At the National Archives of the UK, the Department of Records Officers and records management staff are responsible for preparing records to ensure that they comply with the National Archives’ standards prior to transfer (National Archives of the UK, 2017). The responsibilities of the National Archives are assigned to the Transfer Adviser, the Transfer Team and Collection Care (National Archives of the UK, 2017). Specific archival materials, such as box reference labels, closure labels, dummy cards, yellow and black warning tape and warning stickers, should be made available for the transfer of records (ICA, 2004). The National Archives of the UK (2017) regards the physical preparation of records for transfer as a critical issue.
Disposal of electronic information
The IRMT (2009b) points out that digital records have a short lifespan. Therefore, the disposal of these records should be carried out in ways that serve the needs of organisations (Luthuli and Ngoepe, 2024; IRMT, 2009b). The processes involved in the retention and the disposal of records should be taken into consideration in the design of a records management system (Ndenje-Sichalwe et al., 2011). If the records disposal is not properly guided and is done in silos within the organisation, some valuable information may be deleted, which leads to an information loss to the organisation (Simwaka et al., 2023b, p. 178). Thus, a records management system should include an automatic alert for the disposal of records, as well as an audit trail indicating disposed records and outstanding records for disposal (Mosweu and Bwalya, 2023; Diamond, 2020). The retention schedule may also need to be automated and embedded in the system (Mosweu and Bwalya, 2023).
An ERMS makes provision for the retention and disposal of electronic records. The IT team of an organisation is required to work with the legal team to design and implement an information retention policy, particularly with regard to compliance with legislation. The legal team will have a better understanding of the length of time for which information must be held in terms of the law, whereas the IT team is responsible for the implementation of the policy. The two teams should work together to create the information retention policy carefully to ensure that a file created decades ago will not be deleted automatically after a certain length of time (Awaken Group, 2016; Mosweu and Bwalya, 2023) since the old file could contain valuable data or could even be a crucial contract that the organisation must preserve.
The National Archives of Australia prioritises the transfer of digital material according to the content, age and quantity of records (National Archives of Australia, 2011). By contrast, the National Archives of the United Kingdom (2018) is focused on “supporting government departments in developing their digital capacity for the transfer of born-digital records” for permanent preservation. Digital records thus remain the greatest challenge for the UK’s National Archives, but the digital strategy, which was published in March 2017, sets out guidelines in this regard. To implement the digital strategy, the UK’s National Archives continued working “closely with other leading national archives, including the United States of America (USA), Canada, and Australia, to share insights and learning” (National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018). In addition, the Forum of National Archivists provides an opportunity for sharing learning experiences across national archives in the arena of digital records (National Archives of the United Kingdom, 2018) with a view to bringing together and securing the future of both digital and physical records for future generations.
With regard to the situation in Southern Africa, South Africa has implemented an electronic records management policy that is guided by a formal disposal authority. Asogwa (2012) points out that this scenario or situation differs from that in other African countries, such as Botswana, Kenya and Zimbabwe, which have not yet managed to develop their own disposal authority for electronic records.
Conceptual framework
This study was guided by the conceptual framework. Normally studies are guided or framed by concepts or theories. A conceptual framework is usually applied when there is no clear theory that addresses all issues in the study or clearly tallying with the study direction and concepts (Akintoye (2015). Ngulube (2020) agrees that a conceptual framework is also applied when there is no theory with complete elements covering the concepts of the study. A conceptual framework is applied to guide the reader on the vision of the researcher regarding the study and its variables (Ngulube, 2005), and it is therefore used to guide the researcher on the project (Ngulube, 2020). Conceptual frameworks assist the researcher in explaining how the problem under study is to be investigated through the outlining of concepts and their interrelations (Tamene, 2016; Adom et al., 2018; Ngulube, 2020). Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for this study. The framework shows that organisations may need to have an appraisal committee to strategise and set rules for the disposal of personal identification information. In the process, both physical and electronic information must be covered in the strategies. This may allow the organisation to apply disposal authority from the appropriate archival institution. A schedule must be produced out of the committee strategies to either dispose of information by destruction or transfer to the archival repository.
Methodology
A quantitative multi-method approach was used in which the main data collection tool was a questionnaire, which was triangulated with other qualitative data collection tools such as content analysis, interviews and observations. The reason for the use of the multi-method approach is that it:
Increases the robustness of results because findings can be strengthened through triangulation—the cross-validation achieved when different kinds and sources of data converge and are found to be congruent (Kaplan and Duchon, 1988).
Methods
Research methods have to do with the process under which the researcher determines how data is to be collected, analysed and interpreted in the study (Creswell, 2014). “Data collection methods entail procedures, techniques and tools applied in collecting the desired data from the participants, as sampled. The most popular and utilised data collection methods are qualitative and quantitative methods” (Marutha, 2020). Different researchers do not see the mixed-methods and the multi-method approaches in the same way. Some see these concepts as one and the same and others see them as different approaches altogether. The reality is that the two are different and are also applied differently in research based on different circumstances (Marutha, 2020; Creswell, 2014). The multi-method approach is limited to the application of different methods or styles in the study, whereas the mixed method brings about an equal combination of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies at all levels of study (Hunter and Brewer, 2015).
According to Marutha (2020), the quantitative multi-method approach is one in which different kinds of methods are applied in the study but the quantitative method dominates. This is particularly to close several gaps in the quantitative method. He further elaborates that the “multi-method research approach refers to research where either a qualitative or quantitative method is fully applied in the study but with the partial augmentation from other methods” (Marutha, 2020). He further points out that unlike the mixed method, where both methods carry the same weight, the multi-method approach is either quantitative dominant or qualitative dominant.
In this quantitative multi-method approach, the quantitative method was applied first with the hope that statistical data would be able to address all research problems and/or answer the research questions or address the research objectives entirely. When the researcher realised that some gaps or weaknesses needed to be addressed through qualitative data in the research process, then qualitative data was collected using a qualitative method to close these gaps. In other words, qualitative methods were only applied when there was a need to partially support the quantitative method. This implies that initially the plan for the study was to apply only the quantitative method per se. Meetoo and Temple (2003) see the multi-method approach as a “complementary method” because it complements the other methods where there are some weaknesses (Marutha, 2020).
Data collection
A questionnaire, which served as the main tool of data collection, was triangulated with tools of qualitative data collection, such as content data analysis, interviews and observation (Creswell, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Bryman, 2012; Ngulube, 2015). A survey research design was used for the questionnaire.
In applying the quantitative multi-method approach, initially data was collected using the questionnaire. The researcher realised during the process of collection that some of the statistical data collected may need to be clarified with a limited amount of qualitative data. This resulted in the introduction and application of content analysis, interviews and observations to support different areas of the study.
A questionnaire is normally applied in research with the intention to collect statistical information (Babbie, 2007). Survey questions are usually applied in the adoption of a questionnaire (Marutha, 2020). Questions in the questionnaire are normally structured and closed to allow for quantification in analysis (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Questionnaire data was collected by physical visits and e-mails to civil servants in 24 government bodies, namely, one national directorate for birth certificates, one national institute for driving licences, 11 provincial agencies for birth certificates and 11 provincial agencies for driving licences located in Maputo City, the Maputo Province, the Gaza Province, the Inhambane Province, the Sofala Province, the Manica Province, the Tete Province, the Zambézia Province, the Nampula Province, the Niassa Province and the Cabo Delgado Province.
An interview is a form of direct contact with interviewees or participants, whether virtually or physically. Questions in the interviews are normally open-ended and unstructured or semi-structured (Marutha, 2020). The interviewer normally asks participants questions relating to their motives, behaviours, reasons for actions, experience and feelings about the situation under study (Leedy and Ormond, 2013; Marutha, 2020). Interviews were conducted with 18 senior management from government bodies in charge of issuing driving licences, birth certificates and IT services. The researcher purposively interviewed the leaders, assuming that the head responsible for management would be familiar with the organisation.
Observation as a data collection tool is applied by a researcher observing or witnessing events or actions by participants in their regular tasks under study or experiencing the situation without interfering or influencing the situation in any way. It needs thorough preparation regarding what is to be observed, how and why. During the process the researcher take notes about what is observed (Marutha, 2020; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). The researcher may also choose whether to apply participatory or non-participatory observation. Participatory observation entails the involvement of the researcher in the activities under observation, and non-participatory observation entails the researcher just observing and taking notes without any action from him or her (Leedy and Ormond, 2013; Marutha, 2020). This study was non-participatory. The observation process was focused on the physical measures for information security, the assessment of the physical conditions of the building that stored records, the identification of storage systems and the means by which the information was stored in public provincial government agencies.
Content analysis involves assessing or analysing documents or systems. The intention is to see or identify information coverage in the content, whether these are electronic systems used for business administration functions and activities or documents as policies and procedures guiding administration. This process is therefore also referred to as document analysis or system analysis, depending on what is to be analysed. In a situation involving different kinds of content, it is called content analysis regardless of the type (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003; Marutha, 2020). Content analysis was applied to analyse security policies, guidelines for handling storage media, legislation on the right of access to information, retention and disposal policies or guidelines, legislative frameworks and information governance frameworks in the 11 provincial agencies.
Population and sampling
The target population of this study consisted of a total of 2 790 civil servants in 24 government bodies, namely one national directorate for birth certificates, one national institute for driving licences, 11 provincial agencies for birth certificates and 11 provincial agencies for driving licences located in Maputo City, Maputo Province, Gaza Province, Inhambane Province, Sofala Province, Manica Province, Tete Province, Zambézia Province, Nampula Province, Niassa Province and Cabo Delgado Province. The senior information risk owners, the information asset owners and the information governance managers within the relevant central state departments and agencies in the provinces were stratified to complete the questionnaire. The Raosoft sample size calculator was used to determine the sample size for the questionnaire. The margin of error was 5%, and the sample size confidence level was 90% of 2,790 civil servants, according to this calculator. As a result, the researcher chose a sample size of 247 from the total population of 2,790.
Data analysis
In analysing data, the researcher identifies patterns and themes that lead to the findings and conclusion of the study. This is called thematic analysis (Bernard, 2013; Mouton, 2002), which was also applied in this study. The researcher also interprets and discusses the findings to make sense to the readers (Creswell, 2013). Data is, therefore, cleaned from errors, summarised and edited to make sense out of it (Singleton and Straits, 2010; Marutha, 2020). Data was analysed using spreadsheets for statistical calculations of quantities and percentages. In this study data was presented using tables and explained through narratives.
Ethical considerations
The study was submitted for ethical review to the Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Africa, College of Human Sciences. An ethical clearance certificate was issued after the ethical review before data was collected. Consent was given and signed by each participant during data collection.
Findings of the study
This section deals with the findings on the availability and the application of disposal strategies for personal identification records, as well as the appraisal and retention periods that public government agencies use. Using the questionnaire, the researcher requested respondents to rate the disposal strategies used for personal identification information in their institutions by specifying whether they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure about each of the statements listed. Regarding whether the government bodies in Mozambique have established a disposal schedule for personal identification information, Table 1 shows that 18.1% (32) of the respondents agreed, 16.9% (30) were unsure, the majority, that is, 34.5% (61) disagreed and 30.5% (54) did not respond. According to the observation and document analysis, public government agencies have established a disposal schedule for common functions of personal identification information, but the schedule has not yet been fully implemented across the agencies. The respondents provided the following responses:
Participant 10: “We have made available the disposal scheme for common functions for analysis by the researcher, but it has not been implemented yet.”
Participant 12: “The government body in Mozambique has put in place a disposal schedule for personal identification information but it has not been implemented yet.”
Participant 13: “Although the public government agencies have made a disposal schedule available for personal identification information, it has not been implemented yet.”
Disposal strategies applied regarding personal identification information (N = 177)
| Statements | Rating | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | Unsure | Disagree | Missing/ Not answered | ||
| The government body has put a disposal schedule for personal identification information in place | Frequency | 32 | 30 | 61 | 54 |
| Percent | 18.1 | 16.9 | 34.5 | 30.5 | |
| The government body transfers archival personal identification information to the Mozambique Historical Archives | Frequency | 11 | 29 | 76 | 61 |
| Percent | 6.2 | 16.4 | 42.9 | 34.5 | |
| The government body has created records and an appraisal committee | Frequency | 21 | 26 | 69 | 61 |
| Percent | 11.9 | 14.7 | 39.0 | 34.5 | |
| Disposal permission is sought from the archivist | Frequency | 11 | 34 | 70 | 62 |
| Percent | 6.2 | 19.2 | 39.5 | 35.0 | |
| The government body transfers electronic records to the Mozambique Historical Archives | Frequency | 5 | 32 | 78 | 62.0 |
| Percent | 28 | 18.1 | 44.1 | 35.0 | |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Table 1 indicates that 6.2% (11) of the respondents agreed, 16.4% (29) were unsure and 42.9% (76) disagreed regarding whether the government bodies in Mozambique transfer archival personal identification information to the Mozambique Historical Archives. Furthermore, 34.5% (61) of the respondents did not respond to this statement. The observation and document analysis revealed that, for over 14 years, Mozambique’s public government agencies did not transfer archival personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives. The Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018 allows provincial public government agencies to transfer records to provincial archives, which have yet to be established throughout the country. The respondents provided the following responses:
Participant 2: “Although the Code 12/2004 of 2024 stated it, the organisation has not sent any records to Mozambique Historical Archives for over ten years. However, there are some records that can be checked by the public when they need them.”
Participant 3: “The government body does not transfer archival personal identification information to the Mozambique Historical Archives.”
Participant 10: “The government body does not transfer archival personal identification information to the Mozambique Historical Archives.”
Participant 18: “We did not transfer archival personal identification information to the Mozambique Historical Archives.”
According to the data presented in Table 1, 11.9% (21) of the respondents agreed that the government bodies in Mozambique have established records appraisal committees, 14.7% (26) were unsure and the majority 39.0% (69) disagreed. According to the observation and document analysis, Mozambique’s public government agencies at provincial level have not established records appraisal committees for personal identification records. The following information was provided by participants:
Participant 4: “Only central records appraisal committees were created, which did not coordinate their activities regularly. There was a significant volume of records that had not been appraised for a long time.”
Participant 5: “We did not manage to create our organisational records appraisal committee.”
Participant 6: “The records appraisal committee has not been created yet.”
Another statement was about whether disposal permission is obtained from the archivists in Mozambique’s public government agencies. According to the data presented in Table 1, 6.2% (11) of the respondents agreed that their government bodies sought disposal permission from the archivists, 19.2% (34) were unsure and the majority 39.5% (70) disagreed. The observation and document analysis revealed that, to comply with the Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018, disposal permission is obtained from the archivists within Mozambique’s public government agencies. Participants provided the following responses:
Participant 3: “We never seek disposal permission from the archivist because we have not been trained in records and archives management issues. Also, we do not destroy records at all.”
Participant 13: “The disposal permission is not sought from the archivist within the public government agencies in Mozambique.”
Participant 14: “We did not seek disposal permission from the archivist within the public government agencies in Mozambique.”
The final statement was about whether public government bodies in Mozambique transfer electronic personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives. Table 1 indicates that a small group of 28% (5) agreed, 18.1% (32) were unsure, the majority, that is, 44.1% (78) disagreed and 35% (62) did not respond. The responses of the participants varied, as shown below:
Participant 7: “We never transfer electronic personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives. Also, no procedures have been made available for the transfer of electronic records to the Mozambique Historical Archives.”
Participant 8: “I don’t have much information about it.”
Participant 9: “The government body does not transfer electronic personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives.”
Discussion
This section deals with the findings of the study on the availability of disposal strategies, including the application of disposal schedules, the transfer of archival personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives by government bodies and the establishment of records appraisal committees by government agencies. Furthermore, issues regarding the transfer of electronic records to the Mozambique Historical Archives are covered and whether disposal permission is sought from the archivists. A disposal schedule is a list that specifies when all records must be disposed of (Act 84 of 2018; Moçambique, 2018a). Government agencies are supposed to propose records appraisal committees to the central director of the National System of State Archives (known locally as SNAE) for approval. The records appraisal committees function in all archives and public administration institutions. The committees are multidisciplinary technical groups in charge of coordinating the processes of archival document classification, appraisal, selection and listing (Act 84 of 2018; Moçambique, 2018a). Only 39% (69) of the respondents agreed that Mozambique’s government bodies have established records appraisal committees. In fact, some organisations have yet to create such committees.
Records are transferred to national archives or are kept in organisations’ permanent storage in case they are deemed valuable and deserving of permanent preservation. Physical preparation is required to ensure that records can be used and preserved for as long as possible. According to the National Archives of the UK (2017), simple preparation measures include securing loose material so that nothing is lost, protecting records with appropriately sized covers and boxes, removing potentially harmful materials such as metals and plastics from records, and isolating certain vulnerable materials such as photographs. In respect of transfer and destruction strategies, 36.7% (65) of the respondents agreed that government bodies in Mozambique do not fully comply with the Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018.
It should be specified how and in what formats electronic records should be transferred to the custody of archival institutions. A transfer report must fully document the process of reformatting electronic records for transfer. The transfer report should include additional information, such as a list of the electronic records chosen for transfer, information about the native formats of the electronic records, a description of the preservation and access formats used and details on how the electronic records were copied and reformatted (IRMT, 2009b).
Mozambique’s public government bodies have never transferred electronic personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives, as confirmed by the majority, that is, 44.1% (78) of the respondents, because this issue is not covered in records and archives management legislation, policy and procedures (Moçambique, 2018a).
Records are destroyed after they have been appraised and determined to have no long-term enduring value, according to ARMA International (2012). The destruction of records usually occurs near the end of their useful lives (National Archives of the UK, 2011). The destruction of electronic records includes erasing records, as well as the components and the metadata associated with them, from a computer directory. It also includes keeping an audit trail of the destruction process (IRMT, 2009a). The documentation generated by the destruction process, which should include a description of the records destroyed and how they were destroyed, should be kept as evidence of the act of destruction. There are three key steps in destroying electronic records:
determining which records have no enduring value;
confirming that the records will be destroyed in accordance with the formal agreement between the preserver and the creator of the records; and
if the records are to be destroyed, destroying them completely (IRMT, 2009b).
The government bodies’ electronic personal identification information was supposed to be destroyed by the records appraisal committees, but because there are no records appraisal committees at provincial government agencies, 41.2% (73) of the respondents disagreed with the statement.
Although the public government agencies have established a disposal schedule for the common functions of personal identification information, the schedule has not yet been fully implemented across the agencies. Moreover, Mozambique’s public government agencies keep separate personal identification records based on the archival and ephemeral value of the records. The approved retention schedule for common and specific functions provides this information, but the retention schedule for personal identification records for disposal within public government agencies has not yet been implemented. Furthermore, public government agencies in Mozambique still need to properly sort and register personal identification records for disposal, despite CEDIMO’s approval of a retention schedule for common functions in 2009.
Mozambique’s public government agencies have not transferred archival personal identification records to the Mozambique Historical Archives for over 14 years. The Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018 allows provincial public government agencies to transfer records to provincial archives, but no such archives have been established yet across the country. Some organisations had not sent any records to the Mozambique Historical Archives for over ten years. However, some records are available for public inspection when required. Furthermore, provincial government agencies in Mozambique have not established records appraisal committees for personal identification records. Only central records appraisal committees have been established, and their activities are not regularly coordinated. In fact, a large number of records have not been appraised in a long time. To comply with the Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018 (Moçambique, 2018a), disposal permission should be obtained from the archivists in Mozambique’s public government agencies. However, staff of government agencies never seek archivists’ disposal permission because they are not trained in records and archives management, and they do not destroy any records.
Although a retention schedule for common and specific functions has been made available for the appraisal of personal identification records, it has yet to be implemented. The approved retention schedule for common and specific functions does not apply to electronic personal identification records in public government agencies. Within public government agencies, approved retention schedules were assigned to different categories of personal identification information. Almost all personal identification records are kept because they have a long life.
The disposal and retention schedules for personal identification information must be fully implemented by public government agencies. Each government body must produce and implement its own retention schedule for specific functions. Moreover, public government agencies must separate personal identification records based on their archival and ephemeral value. The approved retention schedule for common and specific functions provides this information. Therefore, organisational personnel must be properly trained in records and archive management. Also, public government agencies must efficiently sort and register personal identification records for disposal, using the retention schedule for common functions.
The Central State Records Management Department should encourage the establishment of permanent archives at central and provincial levels to ensure the long-term preservation of personal identification records and their accessibility to users, which would entail the necessary transfer of personal identification records to newly established central and provincial archives. Additionally, provincial government agencies should establish records appraisal committees for personal identification records. Public government agencies should carry out records appraisal processes for a large volume of records that have not been appraised in a long time, using the newly formed records appraisal committees. To ensure the adequate and consistent destruction of personal identification records, staff within public government agencies should seek disposal permission from the archivists. The entire process is illustrated in Figure 2.
Framework for disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique
Source: Authors’ own work
Framework for disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique
Source: Authors’ own work
As Figure 2 shows, personal identification records must be transferred and destroyed in accordance with the Records and Archives Management Act 84 of 2018. Existing disposal guidelines must be updated to include electronic personal identification information. This means that electronic personal identification records must be transferred to central and provincial archives. Furthermore, the Central State Records Management Department must develop procedures for transferring electronic records to the central and provincial archives. The newly formed records appraisal committees must appraise, transfer and destroy electronic personal identification records in public government agencies in an adequate and consistent manner. The existing disposal policy must be updated to cover the management of e-records containing personal identification information within public government agencies.
Conclusion
The study focused on government entities of Mozambique that produce and manage personal identification information in the form of cards and documents, such as birth certificates and drivers’ licences. The government entities covered include central state departments in Maputo City as well as provincial public governance agencies in Maputo Province, Gaza Province, Inhambane Province, Manica Province, Tete Province, Zambézia Province, Nampula Province, Cabo Delgado Province and Niassa Province. Participants included senior managers and records managers. The results of this study provide information that may be used by the Mozambique government agencies as a benchmark in the development of policies, procedures and standards for the disposal of personal identification information. It is hoped that the framework proposed by this study will serve as a benchmark in guiding the disposal strategies for personal identification information in Mozambique. The study will help the organisations to practise and experience the smooth and proper disposal of personal identification information that is error and risk free, provided that the framework proposed by the study is properly implemented in the development of disposal policy and procedures. With the proper disposal of personal identification information that is error and risk free, organisations will be able to avoid the risks associated with personal information safety and security. They will be able to avoid information leaking into the wrong hands during the disposal process and this will also ensure that only the right information due for disposal is disposed of. There will be no accidental disposal of the wrong information or records. However, this study is not exhaustive of all spheres of disposal strategies for personal identification information. There is a need for a study that focuses on electronic systems or digital transformation for the implementation of disposal strategies for personal identification information.
