How requests for public information are met with delays, silence, and bureaucratic hurdles despite Malawi’s Access to Information law guaranteeing citizens the right to know.
On 15 July 2025, a civil society organization representative based in Mzuzu, submitted an ATI request to the Ministry of Health for district-level data on health facility budgets and staffing allocations. According to the respondent, the Ministry did not respond within the statutory 15-day period and the information was still not released despite an appeal. This experience shows how delays, non-disclosure and weak enforcement can undermine the ability of civil society organizations to monitor public services and hold institutions accountable.
The 15-day promise
The experience is not isolated, the investigation established that 65% of respondents said they did not receive a response to their information request within the statutory 15-day period, while only 35% said they received a response within the period.
The figures point to a significant gap between the right to access and peoples actual experience when they seek information from public institutions.
What people are asking for.
The information being sought by information seekers was not limited to routine administrative matters. The requests covered issues with a direct bearing on people’s lives and management of public resources.
Respondents sought information on a range of public interest issues including health, infrastructure, corruption, accountability and government programs. For those whose requests were unanswered or delayed, the process often involved waiting, following up and eventually giving up.
Health and infrastructure were the two most common areas of information requested, accounting for 26.67%each. Together, they represented more than half of the requests recorded in the investigation.
Other requests covered employment (6.67) while agriculture, civil registration, elections, energy, entertainment, foreign affairs, good governance, government operations, land and property, law and organizations registration each accounted for 3.33% .
The findings clearly tell us that access to information is not an abstract right. People are seeking information about essential services, government decisions, public administration and issues that affects their daily lives.
When waiting becomes giving up
For some information seekers, repeated delays eventually led to abandonment.
Among the 30 respondents, 14 said they gave up after failing to obtain the information they had requested, representing 46.7% of all respondents
Others took different steps. 20% said they took another action, while 6.6% appealed. A smaller proportion said they accepted the results, 3.3% said they both gave up and accepted the situation.
The finding suggests that failure to receive information does not always lead to formal complaint or appeal in many cases, people simply stop pursuing their requests.
When a journalist’s deadline meets a bureaucratic wall
Journalist Sugzo Chitete sought information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs covering Malawi’s foreign policy and diplomatic missions. His requests included a copy of Malawi’s foreign policy, a list of all Malawian foreign missions, missions opened between June 2020 and August 2023, and details of diplomats serving in foreign missions, including their duty stations, positions, appointment dates and qualifications.
He also requested information on diplomats deployed between June 2017 and May 2020, as well as a list of new staff members at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs between June and August 2023.
The matter eventually reached the Malawi Human Rights Commission. The Commission determined that the Ministry should disclose the requested information. Where the Ministry believed disclosure could compromise national security, it was required to explain how the information would do so. The Commission also directed the Ministry to familiarize itself with the Access to Information Act.
But the determination did not end Chitete’s frustration. He was advised to appeal the matter to court.
For a journalist, however, waiting for a court process can come at a cost. The story that prompted the request may no longer be news by the time the information becomes available.
“The last communication I got from Malawi Human Rights Commission was very frustrating, they said you may decide to take the Ministry to Court, so remember I was only doing this as a journalist and then going to court and going for litigation or going to court it will take forever,” Chitete told the investigation.
Why information requests fail
For those who struggled to obtain information, non-response emerged as the biggest obstacle. Thirty-five percent of respondents said their requests failed because the institution simply did not respond. A further 20% cited delays, showing that in more than half of the other barriers included incomplete information (10%) and the unavailability of officials (10%). Smaller proportions reported confidentiality restrictions, court-related delays, permission requirements and security concerns, each accounting for 5% of responses. Another 5% of respondents said he got information on same day but after paying 10,000 thousand Malawi Kwacha.
The findings suggest that failure to access information is not limited to outright refusal. Institutional silence and delays appear to be major barriers, leaving information seekers waiting for responses or receiving information that does not fully address their requests.
This pattern raises questions about how consistently public institutions are implementing their obligations to provide information and respond to requests within the required timeframe.
Weak enforcement undermines access to information
The findings show that failure to respond remains one of the major obstacles faced by people seeking information from public institutions. Thirty-five percent of respondents who said their information requests failed identified lack of response as the reason, making it the most frequently cited reason for failed requests. Delays were another significant barrier, accounting for 20 percent of responses.
The problem is not only about institutions failing to respond. It also raises questions about how effectively the right to information can be enforced when institutions refuse or fail to comply.
The Malawi Human Rights Commission’s (MHRC) Head of Access to Information Unit, Chance Kalolokeysa, said the Commission’s ability to enforce its decisions is limited.
“The Malawi Human Rights Commission is given the mandate to oversee the implementation of access to information act. But if we discover weaknesses, we see challenges what do we do? the law simply says we can make recommendation, but if someone chooses not to take the advice what happens, nothing that we can do”. Kalolokeysa Said.
He also pointed to the absence of penalties for non-compliance as a major weakness in the implementation of the right to access information. He said the Commission is also underfunded, limiting efforts to raise public awareness about the right to information.
The findings therefore suggest a gap between having a legal right to information and having effective mechanisms to enforce that right. Without stronger enforcement and meaningful consequences for non-compliance, citizens may continue to face unanswered requests even where the law provides them with a right to access information.
Limited Awareness and use of the ATI act
The implementation of the access to information act is also being affected by limited awareness and utilization of the law among journalists. According to MISA Malawi Chairperson, Felix Washon, only few journalists understand and make use of the ACT despite its potential to strengthen investigative journalism and improve access to public information.
“Few journalists use the ATI and understand its importance and law in promoting access to information. So, I guess there is also need for more awareness on the ATI so that more and more journalists can use the ATI”. He said.
This simply implies that the challenge is not only on the side of the public institutions that receive information requests, but also among potential users of the law. Without adequate knowledge of the act and, journalists may continue on relying on informal approaches to obtain information rather than using the legal mechanism available to them.
The finding points to sustained awareness among journalists on the ATI act, including how to make information requests, follow up on delayed or refused requests and use available complaint and appeal mechanisms
ATI request test: Putting the law to the test
To test whether the right to information works in practice, the investigation submitted Access to Information (ATI) requests to 10 public institutions. The requests sought information on matters of public interest and were also used to verify issues emerging from the investigation’s survey and interviews.
Name of Institutions
ACB, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Health, Malawi Police Service, Lilongwe Water Board, Lilongwe District Council, Blantyre City Council, ESCOM, MRA and Mzuzu City Council.
Result
The test produced a poor response rate. Of the 10 institutions approached, none provided the requested information. ACB acknowledged receipt and promised to provide the information within 15 days, but the information was never received. The other nine institutions did not respond.
Institution
Outcome
ACB: Acknowledged; promised response within 15 days, but information not received
Ministry of Local Government: No response received
Ministry of Health: No response received
Malawi Police Service: No response received
Lilongwe Water Board: No response received
Lilongwe District Council: No response received
Blantyre City Council: No response received
ESCOM: No response received
MRA: No response received/ Acknowledged receipt of the ATI request
Mzuzu City Council: No response received
Two detailed case studies.
Case 1. Lilongwe Water Board – Seeking information on matters that affect residents.
To test how the Access to Information Act works in practice, the investigation, submitted an information request to Lilongwe Water Board on 11 August 2026. As a resident of Chiuzira who has experienced intermittent water supply and the need to wake up during the night to fetch water, the investigator sought to establish whether the utility had received similar complaints from residents, why water was mainly available during the night, and what measures were being taken to address the problem.
The request was intended to test whether a public institution would provide information on a matter directly affecting residents and whether it would respond within the statutory timeframe. No response had been received at the time of assessment, and no follow-up had been sent.
Case 2: Lilongwe District Council — trying to verify a respondent’s allegation.
A respondent interviewed during the investigation reported that he had paid K10,000 to attend a meeting involving members of the District Environmental Sub-committee (DESC).
Rather than relying solely on the respondent’s account, the investigation approached Lilongwe District Council for documentary evidence that could help verify the claim. This was the requested information:
A copy of the council’s policy on the role of DESC in reviewing and conducting social impact assessments;
Approved rates for allowances and refreshments paid to DESC members;
The number of DESC meetings held in 2024 and 2025.
The request was submitted on 11 August 2026. No response had been received at the time of assessment, and no follow-up had been sent.
As a result, the investigation could not independently establish whether the K10,000 payment reported by the respondent was an approved charge, an allowance, or an unofficial payment.
These two cases illustrate different points at which access to information can break down: an information request concerning a public service problem can go unanswered; and the lack of official records can prevent journalists from independently verifying allegations raised during an investigation.
The request test therefore reinforces concerns raised by respondents and oversight institutions about the practical implementation of the ATI Act. Having a legal right to request information is only meaningful when public institutions respond and provide access to the records needed by citizens and journalists.
Desk Review — Official Records Tell a Similar Story
A review of reports from PPDA, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) and the Office of the Ombudsman shows that Malawi has made progress in putting the Access to Information framework into practice. Some institutions have appointed information officers, trained staff and developed procedures for handling information requests.
However, the reports also reveal persistent implementation gaps. MHRC monitoring found low-to-moderate compliance among assessed institutions, with many showing weak systems, limited awareness of the law and inadequate resources. The Commission also documented cases where institutions were unresponsive to its monitoring efforts and where some failed to comply with its determinations on access to information.
The Ombudsman’s reports provide further evidence of weaknesses in public administration, accountability and responsiveness, while PPDA’s ATI report demonstrates that some institutions have taken steps towards compliance.
Taken together, the official records support the findings from the investigation’s own ATI request test: Malawi has a legal framework guaranteeing access to information, but implementation remains uneven. The gap between having the right on paper and actually obtaining information from public institutions remains a significant challenge.
What Needs to Change?
The findings of this investigation suggest that having the Access to Information Act in place is not enough. For the law to translate into meaningful access to information, public institutions must be required to comply with their obligations, while citizens and journalists need greater awareness of how to use the law.
Enforcement of the Act needs to be strengthened.
Oversight bodies such as the Malawi Human Rights Commission may intervene when access to information is denied, but their ability to ensure compliance is limited. There is therefore a need for stronger mechanisms to deal with institutions or officials who ignore lawful information requests or fail to comply with determinations.
Public institutions need to improve their information management systems.
Delays, incomplete responses and difficulties locating information undermine the effectiveness of the Act. Institutions should maintain proper records, designate and adequately support information officers, and establish clear internal procedures for processing requests within the statutory timeframe.
There is a need for greater awareness of the law.
The investigation found that relatively few journalists make effective use of the ATI Act, despite its potential to strengthen investigative journalism and public accountability. More training is needed for journalists, civil society organizations and ordinary citizens on how to make requests, challenge refusals and use available complaint mechanisms.
Public institutions should be more proactive in publishing information.
Information that is frequently requested or relates to public expenditure, government decisions and service delivery should be routinely made available instead of waiting for citizens to request it. Proactive disclosure would reduce the burden on both information seekers and public institutions.
ATI complaints need to be systematically tracked and publicly reported.
Reliable information on the number of requests made, responses provided, refusals, complaints and cases resolved would make it easier to assess whether the law is actually being implemented.
Ultimately, Malawi does not simply need an Access to Information Act on paper. It needs a culture of disclosure in which public information is treated as a public resource, and where failure to provide information has meaningful consequences.
A Right on Paper, a Struggle in Practice
Malawi has a law that promises citizens the right to know. But for many people seeking information from public institutions, that promise can quickly turn into silence, delays and unanswered questions.
The findings of this investigation reveal a troubling gap between the right guaranteed by the Access to Information Act and the reality faced by those trying to use it. Information requests can stall, responses can fail to arrive, and even when complaints are made, weak enforcement can leave citizens with little power to compel compliance.
This is not simply a problem for journalists. When public institutions withhold, delay or fail to provide information, citizens are denied the opportunity to understand decisions that affect their lives, public resources become harder to scrutinize, and accountability suffers.
The Act was intended to change that. But a right is only meaningful when it can be exercised in practice—and when there are consequences for institutions that ignore it.
For Malawi, the challenge now is not merely having a law that promises access to information. It is making that promise real.
Acknowledgement: This report was produced with support from the Hivos Connect, Defend, Act! programme. If you have similar investigative tips, please email [email protected]
