Africa · edition 2025

Malawi 2025: strong rules, weak public use

Malawi's strongest dimension is enabling environment; its weakest is citizen participation. The framework is not yet translating evenly into practice.

93 indicators 30 procuring entities 4 dimensions

Overall ITI score

25.4/100

Global average: 44.2

First edition

The ITI score

Malawi enters the index at 25.4 of 100

18.8 points below the global average. Enabling environment carries the score; citizen participation holds it back.

The 2025 baseline

25.42025

View as table

Edition	Overall ITI score
2025	25.4

Score by dimension, 2025

Enabling environment78.2

Capacities and processes6.9

Citizen participation3.7

Data publication20.8

Dashed marks show the global average.

Inside the four dimensions

Where the score comes from

Enabling environment

78.2/100

Strongest area:Access-to-public information law · Sanctions over non-compliance with access to public information mandates +4 more100

Weakest area:Organisation guaranteeing the sanctions0

Explore 3 sub-areas

1.1Legal framework and digital tools78.2

1.1.1Access to public information regulatory framework70

1.1.2Transparency standards in the public infrastructure sector92

1.1.3National digital information tools68

Capacities and processes

6.9/100

Strongest area:Computer equipment · Connectivity to the internet14.7

Weakest area:Documentation of non-compliance and sanctions1.3

Explore 5 sub-areas

2.1Institutional capacities7.7

2.1.1Basic knowledge4.1

2.1.2Digital capacities11.3

2.2Institutional processes6.4

2.2.1Procedures to disclose information5.9

2.2.2Enablers and barriers to disclose information4.4

2.2.3Control over infrastructure projects disclosure9.3

Citizen participation

3.7/100

Strongest area:Centralised citizen complaints10

Weakest area:Citizens use evidence · Improvements as a response to citizen participation0

Explore 2 sub-areas

3.1Participation practices3.7

3.1.1Participation opportunities5.6

3.1.2Use of information by citizens2.2

Data publication

20.8/100

Strongest area:Project owner · Project name90

Weakest area:Variation to contract price · Reasons for price changes +4 more0

Explore 6 sub-areas

4.1Disclosure practices20.8

4.1.1Project identification78.9

4.1.2Project preparation32.4

4.1.3Execution contract procurement20

4.1.4Supervision contract procurement8.1

4.1.5Execution contract implementation3.1

4.1.6Supervision contract implementation0

Procuring entities

How 30 procuring entities compare

Scores run from 42 to 2.4, with a median of 8.2.

0Leading80 to 100

0Strong60 to 79

1Developing40 to 59

29Weak0 to 39

#
1	Northern Region Water Board	42	64.5	47.8	18.6
2	Lilongwe Water Board	38	39.1	15.9	50.8
3	Mzuzu City Council	36.6	53.8	33	23.8
4	Roads Authority	27.8	35.5	9.5	32.5
5	Ministry of Agriculture	17.1	14.8	5.4	26.5
6	ESCOM	15	0	0	37.4
7	Neno District Council	12.6	0	0	31.4
8	Blantyre Water Board	12	0	0	29.9
9	Shire Valley Transformation Project Phase 1	11.1	0	0	27.7
10	Malawi University of Basic and Applied Sciences	11.1	0	0	27.6
11	Ministry of Education	10.6	0	0	26.6
12	Ministry of Information and Digitization	10.6	0	0	26.5
13	Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natutal Resources	9.2	0	0	22.9
14	Central Region Water Board	8.8	0	0	22
15	Electricity Generation Company (Malawi) Limited (EGENCO)	8.7	0	0	21.8
16	Ministry of Water and Sanitation	8.2	0	0	20.5
17	Green Belt Authority	7.3	0	0	18.3
18	Malawi University of Science and Technology	6.9	0	0	17.3
19	Ministry of Lands	6.9	0	0	17.3
20	Ministry of Homeland Security	5.9	0	0	14.8
21	Directorate of Buildings, DoB	5.7	0	0	14.2
22	Ministry of Defence	5.6	0	0	14.1
23	Ministry of Transport and Public Works	5.5	0	0	13.8
24	Blantyre City Council	5.3	0	0	13.2
25	Lilongwe City Council	5.2	0	0	12.9
26	ZOMBA CITY COUNCIL	4.5	0	0	11.4
27	Machinga District Council	4.1	0	0	10.3
28	Malawi Institute of Management	3.4	0	0	8.4
29	Ministry of Health	2.8	0	0	7
30	Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Wildlife	2.4	0	0	6.1

Entity dashboard

Inspect one entity in depth

Choose an entity

Northern Region Water Board

Ranked #1 of 30 entities

42PE ITI score

Capacities and processes57.6 above average64.5

Citizen participation44.1 above average47.8

Information disclosure2.2 below average18.6

Ticks mark the average across all 30 entities.

Full detail The complete 93-indicator breakdown

National ITI ScoreScore25.4

1Enabling environmentDimension78.2

1.1Legal framework and digital toolsVariable78.2

1.1.1Access to public information regulatory frameworkSub-variable70

1.1.1.1Access-to-public information lawIndicator100

1.1.1.2Right to request public informationIndicator80

1.1.1.3Sanctions over non-compliance with access to public information mandatesIndicator100

1.1.1.4Organisation guaranteeing the sanctionsIndicator0

1.1.2Transparency standards in the public infrastructure sectorSub-variable92

1.1.2.1Proactive publication of information on public procurement processesIndicator100

1.1.2.2Proactive publication of information on public infrastructure projectsIndicator100

1.1.2.3Infrastructure data disclosure standardIndicator100

1.1.2.4Infrastructure data disclosure standard proactively published as open dataIndicator100

1.1.2.5Organisation responsible for the infrastructure data disclosure standardIndicator60

1.1.3National digital information toolsSub-variable68

1.1.3.1Centralised digital information platformsIndicator60

1.1.3.2Easy access to information in digital information platformsIndicator80

1.1.3.3Infrastructure projects geographic information system (GIS) platformIndicator60

2Capacities and processesDimension6.9

2.1Institutional capacitiesVariable7.7

2.1.1Basic knowledgeSub-variable4.1

2.1.1.1Knowledge about the access-to-information lawIndicator4

2.1.1.2Knowledge about transparency initiatives in the infrastructure sectorIndicator5.3

2.1.1.3Knowledge about the transparency data standard in the infrastructure sectorIndicator2

2.1.1.4Knowledge about sanctions due to non-compliance on the access-to-public-information lawIndicator3.3

2.1.1.5Knowledge about different data categoriesIndicator6

2.1.2Digital capacitiesSub-variable11.3

2.1.2.1Computer equipmentIndicator14.7

2.1.2.2Connectivity to the internetIndicator14.7

2.1.2.3Institutional websiteIndicator11.3

2.1.2.4Information systems for infrastructure projectsIndicator3.3

2.1.2.5Use of digital information systemsIndicator12.7

2.1.2.6Infrastructure open data publicationIndicator6.7

2.1.2.7Visualisations based on infrastructure projects dataIndicator9.3

2.2Institutional processesVariable6.4

2.2.1Procedures to disclose informationSub-variable5.9

2.2.1.1Procedures for the publication of informationIndicator3.3

2.2.1.2Responsibilities for disclosureIndicator5.3

2.2.1.3Information officer profileIndicator5.3

2.2.1.4Information officerIndicator8.7

2.2.1.5Follow-up mechanisms on information requestsIndicator6.7

2.2.2Enablers and barriers to disclose informationSub-variable4.4

2.2.2.1Internal policy for information publicationIndicator3.3

2.2.2.2Disclosure training programmeIndicator2

2.2.2.3Identification of limitations for publishing informationIndicator6

2.2.2.4Plan to mitigate limitations for publishing informationIndicator2.7

2.2.2.5Bureaucratic barriers to publish informationIndicator12

2.2.2.6Documentation of non-compliance and sanctionsIndicator1.3

2.2.3Control over infrastructure projects disclosureSub-variable9.3

2.2.3.1Level of disclosed infrastructure projectsIndicator10.7

2.2.3.2Level of investment represented by disclosed infrastructure projectsIndicator8

3Citizen participationDimension3.7

3.1Participation practicesVariable3.7

3.1.1Participation opportunitiesSub-variable5.6

3.1.1.1Institutionalised citizen participationIndicator2

3.1.1.2Permanent and inclusive citizen participationIndicator4.7

3.1.1.3Citizen participation in infrastructure projectsIndicator7.3

3.1.1.4Citizen attention officeIndicator5.3

3.1.1.5Online form for consultation or requestsIndicator3.3

3.1.1.6Awareness of participation opportunitiesIndicator8.7

3.1.2Use of information by citizensSub-variable2.2

3.1.2.1Centralised citizen complaintsIndicator10

3.3.2.2Requests and responses of access to informationIndicator2

3.3.2.3Institutional response capacityIndicator2.7

3.3.2.4Institutional use evidenceIndicator2

3.3.2.5Citizens use evidenceIndicator0

3.3.2.6Evidence of joint projectsIndicator2

3.3.2.7Improvements as a response to citizen participationIndicator0

4Information disclosureDimension20.8

4.1Disclosure practicesVariable20.8

4.1.1Project identificationSub-variable78.9

4.1.1.1Project reference numberIndicator42.3

4.1.1.2Project ownerIndicator90

4.1.1.3Sector and sub-sectorIndicator57.3

4.1.1.4Project nameIndicator90

4.1.1.5Project locationIndicator88.7

4.1.1.6Project descriptionIndicator84

4.1.1.7PurposeIndicator79.7

4.1.2Project preparationSub-variable32.4

4.1.2.1Environmental impactIndicator15

4.1.2.2Land and settlement impactIndicator15

4.1.2.3Contact detailsIndicator24.3

4.1.2.4Project budget and date of approvalIndicator75.3

4.1.2.5Funding sourcesIndicator59.3

4.1.3Execution contract procurementSub-variable20

4.1.3.1Procuring entity and contact detailsIndicator51.3

4.1.3.2Procurement processIndicator10

4.1.3.3Number of firms biddingIndicator3.3

4.1.3.4Contract typeIndicator18.3

4.1.3.5Contract titleIndicator17.7

4.1.3.6Contract priceIndicator12.7

4.1.3.7Contract start dateIndicator24

4.1.3.8Contract durationIndicator28.7

4.1.3.9Contractor(s)Indicator13.7

4.1.3.10Contract scope of workIndicator20.3

4.1.4Supervision contract procurementSub-variable8.1

4.1.4.1Procuring entity and contact detailsIndicator13.3

4.1.4.2Procurement processIndicator3.3

4.1.4.3Number of firms/individuals biddingIndicator1.7

4.1.4.4Contract typeIndicator13.3

4.1.4.5Contract titleIndicator10

4.1.4.6Contract priceIndicator8.3

4.1.4.7Contract start dateIndicator6.7

4.1.4.8Contract durationIndicator8.3

4.1.4.9Contract firm/individualIndicator7

4.1.4.10Contract scope of workIndicator9.3

4.1.5Execution contract implementationSub-variable3.1

4.1.5.1Variation to contract priceIndicator2

4.1.5.2Reasons for price changesIndicator2

4.1.5.3Variation to contract durationIndicator5.3

4.1.5.4Reasons for contract duration changesIndicator4.3

4.1.5.5Variation to contract scopeIndicator2.7

4.1.5.6Reasons for scope changesIndicator2.7

4.1.6Supervision contract implementationSub-variable0

4.1.6.1Variation to contract priceIndicator0

4.1.6.2Reasons for price changesIndicator0

4.1.6.3Variation to contract durationIndicator0

4.1.6.4Reasons for duration changesIndicator0

4.1.6.5Variation to contract scopeIndicator0

4.1.6.6Reasons for scope changesIndicator0

Malawi 2025: strong rules, weak public use

Malawi enters the index at 25.4 of 100

Where the score comes from

How 30 procuring entities compare

Inspect one entity in depth

Compare this country with others