STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

Malawi

Partly Free
61
100
A Obstacles to Access 11 25
B Limits on Content 26 35
C Violations of User Rights 24 40
Last Year's Score & Status
59 100 Partly Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
Malawi_hero_map

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

Internet freedom in Malawi improved during the coverage period. Fewer internet users were criminally charged for their online expression, and a new data protection law, which was praised by civil society, came into effect in June 2024. Despite these gains, there were concerns about government surveillance ahead of the September 2025 general elections, and online news outlets remained subject to attempted government manipulation through unofficial directives.

  • While fewer people were criminally charged or received prison sentences for their online speech than in previous years, authorities continued to arrest and briefly detain internet users. In June 2024, activist Bon Kalindo and lawmaker Kamlepo Kalua were arrested in connection with audio clips on social media in which they reportedly questioned official accounts of a plane crash earlier that month; the crash had killed nine people, including then–Vice President Saulos Chilima. Kalindo and Kalua were released on bail after being held for several days (C3).1
  • In January 2025, the Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) opened an investigation into the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) after it signed a contract to purchase and deploy a surveillance system meant to track misinformation and disinformation ahead of the September general elections. Civil society groups in the country raised concerns about the risk of improper mass surveillance and data collection. The MHRC had not released an update on its investigation by the end of the coverage period (C5).2
  • The Data Protection Act, which was promulgated in February 2024 and came into force in June of that year, offered more robust safeguards for online privacy than existing legislation.3 While the law was largely welcomed by civil society groups, it was potentially problematic that MACRA, which is not an independent body, would serve as the data protection authority responsible for enforcing the act’s provisions (C6).4

header2 Political Overview

Malawi holds regular elections and has undergone multiple transfers of power between political parties. Freedoms of speech, expression, and association are for the most part respected, though individual violations continue to be reported. Corruption is rife, police brutality is common, and discrimination and violence toward women, members of minority groups, and people with albinism remain problems.

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 1.001 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 1.001 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 5.005 6.006
A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 3.003 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 1.001 4.004

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 6.006 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 3.003 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 3.003 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 3.003 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 2.002 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 2.002 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 2.002 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 5.005 6.006

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 3.003 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 1.001 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 4.004 6.006

Score Change: The score improved from 3 to 4 because there were fewer reported cases of convictions for online expression during the coverage period.

C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 3.003 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 3.003 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 3.003 6.006

Score Change: The score improved from 2 to 3 because the Data Protection Act, which was passed by lawmakers in December 2023 and promulgated in February 2024, came into force in June 2024.1

C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 4.004 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 3.003 3.003

On Malawi

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    20,410,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    65 100 partly free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    61 100 partly free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Partly Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    No

  • Pro-government Commentators

    No

  • Users Arrested

    Yes