Malawi

Published May 2025

Relevant Legislation

Summary

Malawi has several statutes and laws that address whistleblower protection, with some providing for whistleblower anonymity, protection from retaliation, and punitive measures against those who punish or retaliate against whistleblowers. However, despite being a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (2005) and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (2003), Malawi does not have a comprehensive whistleblower protection act. In other words, there are no minimum standards to measure compliance with accepted international norms regarding whistleblowers’ protection. Additionally, the mechanisms and institutions responsible for implementing Malawi’s fragmented whistleblower protections are, in some cases, susceptible to corruption, such as the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), established under the Corrupt Practices Act 17/2004, and the police, or are altogether absent.

For instance, the proper measures to implement the Access to Information Act have not yet been taken, despite it being passed several years ago. Additionally, there is little legal framework to compensate or provide restitution to whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation.

Whistleblowers in Malawi have been subject to violence and arrest in the recent past. However, several anonymous whistleblowers have also reportedly been monetarily rewarded for disclosing instances of fraud and corruption via the Tip-Offs Anonymous program. Aside from this program, which only rewards whistleblowers whose tips lead to the recovery of revenue, proper reporting channels may be inaccessible or unreliable, and the potential for monetary rewards remains unclear.

Whistleblower laws and policies

Several Malawian statutes and laws contain provisions that can be utilised to protect whistleblowers in specific circumstances. Notably, the Corrupt Practices Act 17/2004 was enacted to address endemic corruption, particularly within the civil service and private sector. Section 51a of the Act criminalises retaliation against whistleblowers who report corrupt practices to the ACB or the police, prescribing imprisonment and fines for offenders. The Act also sets out guidelines to protect said whistleblowers’ identities in court, except in limited circumstances.

However, significant risks of political interference persist. The President of Malawi, as the head of the executive, appoints the Director of the ACB, subject to approval by the Public Appointments Committee. Because this role is a political appointment, the Director is both politically influential and lacks independence, being directly accountable to the President. Moreover, the President determines the terms and conditions of employment for both the Director and Deputy Director (as outlined in Section 9 of the Act).

Compounding the issue, the ACB holds broad discretion in determining whether a whistleblower’s disclosure warrants a formal investigation and resource allocation. This decision-making power rests with investigators, further exposing the process to potential bias or external pressure.

Additionally, Section 14 of the Act imposes harsh penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and a MWK100,000 fine (57.7 USD) on individuals who knowingly submit false reports or provide misleading information during an investigation. The judgment of what constitutes a “false report” is often left to the discretion of the investigating officer, potentially discouraging whistleblowers from coming forward due to fear of reprisal.

Section 20 of the Public Officers Bill, the goal of which is to promote public confidence in the public service by requiring public officers to declare assets and business interests, similarly provides for imprisonment and fines for those who punish or victimise whistleblowers who report a public officer’s inaccurate declarations to the Director of Public Officers. This section also sets out guidelines to protect whistleblowers’ identities in court.

Additionally, Section 50 of the Access to Information Act states that a whistleblower who discloses or attempts, upon reasonable suspicion, to disclose information in the public interest to a law enforcement agency or appropriate public entity shall not be penalised in relation to his/her employment, profession, voluntary work, contract, organisation membership, holding of office, or in “any other way.” However, as Open Government Partnership notes, the Act does not lay out any punitive measures or restitutive provisions for whistleblowers who are penalised or victimised for reporting. Additionally, because the overseeing body has no enforcement powers, enforcement is essentially left to the often inaccessible and costly courts.

Other laws contain provisions that, while they do not explicitly utilise the term “whistleblower,” seem to be aimed at protecting whistleblowers in specific instances. For example, Section 25 of the Financial Crimes Act forbids a legal or natural person from disclosing any information that will identify or likely identify a person who has made or prepared a suspicious transaction report to the Financial Intelligence Authority – except for prosecution under the Act itself. Anyone who does disclose such information faces the risk of heavy monetary penalties, imprisonment, and even revocation of their business licenses.

This provision is more progressive but offers limited protection as the targets of these disclosures often use intermediaries to carry out their intimidatory reprisal attacks so as to avoid being further implicated. Without direct evidence of involvement in reprisal attacks, these perpetrators often walk free due to the burden of proof in the attendant criminal proceedings. Such actions also impact the frequency and willingness of whistleblowers to report misconduct they witness, with many electing to remain silent.

Furthermore, the second Code of Corporate Governance in Malawi (“Code II”) exists to promote corporate governance principles within all types of organisations across the country. The Code II is considered a “voluntary” code comprised of Overarching Provisions (“OPs”) that were kept sufficiently broad as to apply to all types of organisations. Thus, perhaps due to this broad approach, no specific whistleblowing protections or programs are found within the OPs. However, various OPs address issues such as ethics, good citizenship, sustainability, and external communications, all of which could be read as touching on whistleblowing and related matters to some extent.

Code II also notes that specific sectors may develop, adopt, and promote particularised guidelines that may involve more stringent requirements. Consequently, the Reserve Bank of Malawi has devised several such guidelines for banks, insurance companies, and securities market players. While none of these guidelines address whistleblowing directly, all three guidelines address ethics, transparency, and related issues that can be seen as encompassing common whistleblowing issues. The guidelines also contain enforcement provisions with heavy monetary penalties.

Finally, the Tip-Offs Anonymous Program exists as an outlet to allow individuals to anonymously report instances of fraud, bribery, corruption, and smuggling in Malawi. The program was introduced by the Malawi Revenue Authority in 2010 and is administered by Deloitte, which also administers the prog ram in other African countries and elsewhere. The program allows for disclosures via a toll-free phone number, email, or letter in English or Chichewa. Reporters use an anonymous code to make their disclosures, meaning they are guaranteed “total confidentiality.” The reporter receives a monetary award when the tip results in the recovery of revenues, and, if they qualify to receive an award, the giver and receiver never meet in person in order to further protect anonymity. The last financial year for which data is available resulted in over K282 million (about 162 500 USD) paid out to informants.

Weaknesses and needed reforms

Though a number of whistleblower protections exist in the law, there are questions about the extent to which the protections are actually implemented and utilised. For example, the Access to Information Act’s somewhat-limited whistleblower protection provision has yet to be implemented

An additional issue is that the groups who are themselves entrusted with enforcing statutes and handling whistleblowers are susceptible to corruption and are often difficult for potential whistleblowers to access. For example, the Corrupt Practices Act’s whistleblower protection provision notes that concerned individuals can make a report to the police or to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which the Corrupt Practices Act established. However, Freedom House has noted that civil society leaders have accused the Anti-Corruption Bureau, a government department meant to investigate and prevent corruption, of being ineffective and politically compromised.

Similarly, there have been concerns about police behaviour in Malawi, and, in 2016, a Malawian whistleblower who exposed corruption at a public hospital was arrested and later rearrested by police. Other acts, like the Access to Information Act, essentially leave enforcement to the courts, which leads to financial costs and delays that many whistleblowers cannot undertake. Some of the guidelines discussed in the above section lack explicit whistleblower protections. For instance, though Code II provisions were written to be rather broad, the corporate governance guidelines for banks, insurance companies, and securities market players lack whistleblower protections, even though such provisions would seemingly be appropriate and relevant to include within the guidelines.

Additionally, some of the acts listed above, such as the Financial Crimes Act, do not explicitly use or define the term whistleblower, even though the goal of the relevant provisions seems to be to create some, albeit limited, whistleblower protections.

Finally, although some statutes addressing whistleblowing provide for punitive measures for those who retaliate against whistleblowers, it is unclear if any reliable formal channels exist by which the whistleblowers can report the retaliation and receive remedies for any losses suffered.

Overall, to truly protect Malawian whistleblowers, it is necessary to address gaps in the language of, and strengthen the remedies available via, various statutes, laws, and corporate guidelines. This is not sufficient to fully protect whistleblowers, though. The corruption of the bodies entrusted with addressing corruption (and protecting whistleblowers), such as the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the police, must be addressed as well.

There are indeed promising programs, like Deloitte’s Tip-Offs Anonymous program, which is run by a large external corporation, that may well help with the internal corruption problem found in Malawi’s governmental departments and police forces. The existence of these programs is not enough, though. It is necessary to invest in further outreach and education so the public knows that this program, and possibly others, exist, offering rewards and protection for anonymous whistleblowers. However, it is important to note that the Tip-Offs program only rewards those whose tips lead to the recovery of revenue; it is unclear whether whistleblowers whose tips do not lead to investigations may still be rewarded via a different outlet.

Overall, to truly protect Malawian whistleblowers, it is necessary but not sufficient to address gaps in the language of, and strengthen the remedies available via, various statutes, laws, and corporate guidelines. The bodies themselves, such as the Anti-Corruption Bureau and the police, entrusted with addressing corruption- and protecting whistleblowers- are themselves corrupt, and this must be addressed.

There are indeed promising programs, like the Tip-Offs Anonymous program, run by the large corporation and outside party Deloitte, which may well help with the internal corruption problem found within internal governmental departments and police forces. But it is necessary to ensure via further outreach and education that the public knows that this program, and potentially other avenues, exist to offer rewards and protection for acting as anonymous whistleblowers. Additionally, it is important to note that the Tip-Offs program only rewards those whose tips lead the recovery of revenue; it is unclear whether whistleblowers whose tips do not lead to investigations may still be rewarded via a different outlet.

Secrecy laws

In Malawi, both individuals and the press have constitutional access to information rights. Article 36 states that the press shall “be accorded the fullest possible facilities for access to public information,” and article 37 states that individuals “shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of Government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of [their] rights.”

The Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) notes, however, that the Official Secrets Act of 1968 limits disclosure of a broad range of information, and that the Preservation of Public Security Act of 1960 prohibits publication of anything likely to be “prejudicial to public security; undermine the authority of, or the public confidence in, the government; promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between any sections of classes or races of the inhabitants of Malawi; or promote industrial unrest in the country.” CIPESA explains that these two laws burden the right to access information. Furthermore, the organisation explains that some instances of the repression of information access and free speech – like internet outages on election day or journalists’ articles that strangely went unpublished – are rumoured to have been ordered by the government to limit citizens’ access to certain information.

The Access to Information Act, 2016, is meant to provide for and facilitate the right of access to information in the custody of public and some private bodies. However, the act has yet to come into force, thus creating a key impediment to the general public’s access to information which could heighten awareness on how corruption stymies economic and social development. Until it urgently comes into practice, the right to information will be suppressed, thus equally suppressing the ability to speak out against pervasive corrupt practices citizens encounter on a daily basis, thereby keeping whistleblowers submissive and hidden in the shadows.

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media

Reporters Without Borders ranks Malawi 63rd out of 180 countries in its 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

Malawi’s constitutional protections include the right to personal privacy, including the right not to be subject to interference with private communications, including mail and telecommunications; the right to freedom of opinion, including the right to impart and receive opinions without interference; and the right to freedom of expression. Additionally, should an act violate a person’s rights or freedoms, including those listed above, granted to them by the Constitution, the Constitution also guarantees the right to an effective remedy by a court of law or a tribunal.

Malawi’s Constitution also enshrines the freedom of the press, including the right to report and publish freely, within Malawi and abroad, and the right to access public information via the “fullest possible facilities.”

However, Freedom House notes that in recent years, these constitutional provisions have been threatened, despite the Constitution’s assurance that it is supreme, and that any law or governmental act that is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be invalid. For example, they note the 2016 Cybersecurity Law’s “Prohibition on Offensive Communication,” is worded vaguely enough to potentially be construed broadly and thus threaten freedom of speech and of the press online. Relatedly, Freedom House points out civil society leaders’ suspicions that the government monitors citizens’ electronic communications using new technology introduced in 2017. They also note the four-month period in 2019 during which the Malawi Communications Regulation Authority suspended call-in radio programs, as well as physical violence that journalists have historically faced (notably, a journalist was recently attacked, which perhaps prompted the Malawi Police Service’s new security guidelines intended to protect journalists).

Internet freedom has declined in Malawi thanks to the continued persecution of online journalists and other internet users for their critical expression. For example, in 2024, Sainani Joshua was convicted of “cyberspamming” under the Electronic Transactions and Cybersecurity Act for insulting Malawi’s President in a WhatsApp group. He was required to either pay a fine of 200,000 Malawian kwacha (about 120 USD) or spend six months in prison. In the same year, Macmillan Mhone, an online journalist at Malawi 24, who had published two stories alleging that the police were involved in corruption connected to a businessman facing charges of fraud was arrested and and charged with “publication of news likely to cause fear and public alarm, cyberspamming, and extortion.”

Additionally, under the 2016 Communications Act, SIM card registration is mandatory and requires proof of identity, severely limiting anonymous communication. There are also indications that the government may be using extraction tools (which allow them to bypass passwords and extract data from mobile devices) to increase their surveillance capabilities and search journalists’ devices, despite the right to privacy enshrined in the country’s Constitution.

Whistleblower cases

In 2023, Malawian whistleblower Biswick Kaswaswa, former Financial Manager at Trinity Energy Company Ltd – the largest privately owned energy company in South Sudan – uncovered an alleged complete lack of financial management regulations and policies within the company shortly after his appointment in 2018. When Kaswaswa began working to improve the system, he experienced resistance and was ultimately forced out of the company. Kaswaswa was arbitrarily arrested and detained, tortured and forced into hiding. With PPLAAF’s support, his revelations helped US-based investigative Non-Governmental Organisation The Sentry reveal red flags for illicit business practices, including bribery, tax evasion, and trade-based money laundering.

However, whistleblowers in Malawi have faced violence and arrest in the past. During the highly publicised Cashgate scandal – which first came to light in 2013 and involved widespread theft of public money and the arrest and firing of many government officials – the possible (and, to some, presumed) whistleblower, a government official, barely survived an assassination attempt. Additionally, in 2016, Malawi police arrested and rearrested a whistleblower who was said to have “risked his life” to reveal corruption at a public hospital.

Other troubling instances of violence have been directed at individuals dedicated to fighting and uncovering corruption in Malawi. For instance, it is believed that the mysterious 2015 murder of a former Anti-Corruption Bureau director of corporate affairs was politically motivated.

However, there are some signs that the environment for whistleblowers in Malawi may be, at least in part, trending in a positive direction. For instance, Deloitte and the Malawi Revenue Authority announced in 2017 that twenty-seven anonymous whistleblowers who had reported under the Tip-Offs Anonymous program would receive monetary rewards ranging from a minimum of ten percent of the taxes recovered to a maximum of 500,000 Malawian Kwacha. During the financial year from July 2018 to June 2019, the Malawi Revenue Authority paid out over 282 million Malawian Kwacha to successful Tip-Offs Anonymous informants.

More recently, allegations of deep-seated corruption in Malawi’s judiciary by lawyer Alexious Kamangila sparked widespread anger and demands of accountability across the country. Kamangila’s whistleblowing led to an investigation by the Judicial Service Commission.

Knowledge, support and action centers

Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation

CHHR was founded in 1995 and is one of the leading human rights NGOs in Malawi. It is authorised to provide its services – which range from lobbying to awareness creation on Constitutional rights to production of public awareness materials – anywhere in Malawi.

Address: Mango Street, Area 47/3/91, Lilongwe
Postal Address: P.O Box 2340, Lilongwe
Tel: +(265) 01 761 122
Email: chrr@chrrmw.org
Website: https://chrrmw.org/

Media Institute Southern Africa (MISA) Malawi

MISA Malawi is an advocacy organisation that promotes and defends media freedom, freedom of expression, and access to information across southern Africa in line with the Windhoek Declaration of 1991. One of eleven MISA chapters, MISA Malawi is a reputable and authoritative source of information that has engaged in notable successful research, advocacy, freedom monitoring, and capacity building activities.

Physical address: Mtolankhani House Acacia, Lilaga Community Off Lilongwe-Kasiya Road Lilongwe, Malawi
Postal address: P.O. Box 30463 Lilongwe 3, Malawi
Tel: +265 1 758 091
Fax: +265 1 758 091
Email: info@misamalawi.org
Website: https://malawi.misa.org

Malawi Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJM)

CIJM is an independent center of investigative journalists that is dedicated to promoting effective, ethical, and original reporting. CIJM’s goal is to promote investigative journalism though skills development, mentorship, and access to information and resources; the organisation believes that journalism should favour the “systemic and contextualised exposure of corruption” and related issues.