Malawi24: Malawi: Monday, 21th September 2026.
.jpeg)
Malawi’s Access to
Information law was enacted to give citizens the right to seek information from
public institutions. But what happens when public institutions do not respond?
Access to information exists to make government more open, transparent and accountable.
For journalists, citizens and civil society organizations, the Access to Information (ATI) Act provides a legal framework to ask public institutions for information that matters to the public.
But putting that right into practice can be a different story
As par of this investigation, interviews were conducted with people who had actually used the ATI legal framework to request information from public institutions.
Their experiences reveal the practical barriers they faced when seeking information.
Separately, ATI requests were submitted to 10 public institutions to test how effectively the right to information works in practice. The test requests form part of the wider investigation and were used alongside the experiences of information seekers and documentary evidence.
The findings reveal a troubling pattern: too often, information seekers are met with silence, delays or incomplete answers.
The numbers:
35%-No response
More than a third of the reported reasons why information requests failed involved institutions that did not respond.
20%-Delays
Delays were the second most common problem, making it difficult for information seekers to obtain information when they needed it.
10%-Incomplete information
Some responses provided only part of the information requested.
10%-Officials unavailable
In some cases, access was affected by the unavailability of officials.
Other reasons recorded included confidentiality, court delays, permission requirements, security concerns.
When silence becomes a barrier
A refusal is visible. Silence is harder to challenge.
When an institution does not respond to an ATI request, the requester is left without the information and may have to spend additional time following up, escalating the matter or pursuing other avenues.
For journalists, this can have a direct impact on investigations.
A story about public spending, service delivery or government decisions may depend on documents held by a public institution. If those documents are delayed or never provided, the investigation can stall.
This raises an important question:
What is the value of a legal right if exercising that right does not consistently produce information?
A water supply request shows why information matters
One request examined intermittent water supply in Chiuzira area in Liongwe.
The request sought information on whether the Lilongwe Water Board had received complaints or requests concerning the water situation, why residents were experiencing running water mainly at night, and what measures were being taken to address the problem.
These are not merely administrative questions.
They are questions about public service delivery and accountability.
Residents experiencing unreliable water supplies have a legitimate interest in knowing what is causing the problem and what the responsible institution is doing about it.
ATI provides a mechanism for seeking those answers.
But the effectiveness of that mechanism depends on institutions responding meaningfully and within the required framework.
The problem is bigger than one request
The pattern emerging from the requests suggests that accessing information is not always a straightforward process.
Requests can encounter delays, incomplete responses, unavailable officials and requirements for additional permission.
In other cases, information may be withheld on grounds such as confidentiality or security.
Some of these restrictions may be legitimate where provided for by law. The concern is whether such grounds are being applied consistently, transparently and in accordance with the ATI framework.
The investigation therefore points to an important distinction:
Having a right to request information is not the same as having effective access to information.
What the evidence tells us
The findings point to three key problems.
1. Non-response is undermining the right
The fact that 35% of reported request failures involved no response is significant. An unanswered request provides neither the requested information nor a clear explanation to the information seeker.
2. Delays reduce the value of information
For journalists and citizens seeking information about current issues, timing matters. Information received after a story, decision or public controversy has passed may have significantly less practical value.
3. Implementation matters as much as legislation
The ATI Act provides the legal framework. But its success ultimately depends on public institutions implementing that framework and information seekers being able to use it effectively.
The bigger picture
Evidence from ATI-related reports and engagement with oversight and media stakeholders points to broader challenges in implementation, including concerns around enforcement, awareness and utilization of the law.
The problem, therefore, cannot be solved simply by telling citizens to submit more requests.
Public institutions must also recognize that responding to lawful information requests is part of their responsibility to the public.
Journalists and citizens, meanwhile, need greater awareness of the law and the mechanisms available when information is not provided.
A right that must work in practice
Access to information is often described as a foundation for transparency and accountability.
But transparency cannot exist where information is routinely delayed, incomplete or simply unanswered.
The findings from this investigation suggest that Malawi’s ATI challenge is no longer only about whether the right exists.
It is about whether the right works.
For the citizen waiting for answers, the journalist trying to complete an investigation and the community demanding accountability, the test of the Access to Information Act is simple:
When information is requested, does it actually reach the person who asked for it?
The data suggests that, too often, the answer is no.
Acknowledgement: This report was produced with support from the Hivos Connect, Defend, Act! programme. If you have similar investigative tips, please email editor@malawi24.com
.jpeg)
Access to information exists to make government more open, transparent and accountable.
For journalists, citizens and civil society organizations, the Access to Information (ATI) Act provides a legal framework to ask public institutions for information that matters to the public.
But putting that right into practice can be a different story
As par of this investigation, interviews were conducted with people who had actually used the ATI legal framework to request information from public institutions.
Their experiences reveal the practical barriers they faced when seeking information.
Separately, ATI requests were submitted to 10 public institutions to test how effectively the right to information works in practice. The test requests form part of the wider investigation and were used alongside the experiences of information seekers and documentary evidence.
The findings reveal a troubling pattern: too often, information seekers are met with silence, delays or incomplete answers.
The numbers:
35%-No response
More than a third of the reported reasons why information requests failed involved institutions that did not respond.
20%-Delays
Delays were the second most common problem, making it difficult for information seekers to obtain information when they needed it.
10%-Incomplete information
Some responses provided only part of the information requested.
10%-Officials unavailable
In some cases, access was affected by the unavailability of officials.
Other reasons recorded included confidentiality, court delays, permission requirements, security concerns.
When silence becomes a barrier
A refusal is visible. Silence is harder to challenge.
When an institution does not respond to an ATI request, the requester is left without the information and may have to spend additional time following up, escalating the matter or pursuing other avenues.
For journalists, this can have a direct impact on investigations.
A story about public spending, service delivery or government decisions may depend on documents held by a public institution. If those documents are delayed or never provided, the investigation can stall.
This raises an important question:
What is the value of a legal right if exercising that right does not consistently produce information?
A water supply request shows why information matters
One request examined intermittent water supply in Chiuzira area in Liongwe.
The request sought information on whether the Lilongwe Water Board had received complaints or requests concerning the water situation, why residents were experiencing running water mainly at night, and what measures were being taken to address the problem.
These are not merely administrative questions.
They are questions about public service delivery and accountability.
Residents experiencing unreliable water supplies have a legitimate interest in knowing what is causing the problem and what the responsible institution is doing about it.
ATI provides a mechanism for seeking those answers.
But the effectiveness of that mechanism depends on institutions responding meaningfully and within the required framework.
The problem is bigger than one request
The pattern emerging from the requests suggests that accessing information is not always a straightforward process.
Requests can encounter delays, incomplete responses, unavailable officials and requirements for additional permission.
In other cases, information may be withheld on grounds such as confidentiality or security.
Some of these restrictions may be legitimate where provided for by law. The concern is whether such grounds are being applied consistently, transparently and in accordance with the ATI framework.
The investigation therefore points to an important distinction:
Having a right to request information is not the same as having effective access to information.
What the evidence tells us
The findings point to three key problems.
1. Non-response is undermining the right
The fact that 35% of reported request failures involved no response is significant. An unanswered request provides neither the requested information nor a clear explanation to the information seeker.
2. Delays reduce the value of information
For journalists and citizens seeking information about current issues, timing matters. Information received after a story, decision or public controversy has passed may have significantly less practical value.
3. Implementation matters as much as legislation
The ATI Act provides the legal framework. But its success ultimately depends on public institutions implementing that framework and information seekers being able to use it effectively.
The bigger picture
Evidence from ATI-related reports and engagement with oversight and media stakeholders points to broader challenges in implementation, including concerns around enforcement, awareness and utilization of the law.
The problem, therefore, cannot be solved simply by telling citizens to submit more requests.
Public institutions must also recognize that responding to lawful information requests is part of their responsibility to the public.
Journalists and citizens, meanwhile, need greater awareness of the law and the mechanisms available when information is not provided.
A right that must work in practice
Access to information is often described as a foundation for transparency and accountability.
But transparency cannot exist where information is routinely delayed, incomplete or simply unanswered.
The findings from this investigation suggest that Malawi’s ATI challenge is no longer only about whether the right exists.
It is about whether the right works.
For the citizen waiting for answers, the journalist trying to complete an investigation and the community demanding accountability, the test of the Access to Information Act is simple:
When information is requested, does it actually reach the person who asked for it?
The data suggests that, too often, the answer is no.
Acknowledgement: This report was produced with support from the Hivos Connect, Defend, Act! programme. If you have similar investigative tips, please email editor@malawi24.com
.JPG)
.JPG)
