The Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA) was established under the Communications Act of 2016 with a clear mandate: to regulate communications services, ensure equitable access, promote affordability, and protect consumer rights. Additionally, under the Data Protection Act of 2024, MACRA is tasked with safeguarding personal data and enforcing compliance with privacy laws.
However, the recent decision to procure a system from HASHCOM Ghana Ltd, allegedly to combat fake news, raises serious questions about whether MACRA is adhering to its legal framework or prioritizing the needs of Malawians.
MACRA’s Regulatory Framework: Misaligned Actions
The Communications Act explicitly mandates MACRA to focus on:
1. Regulation and Monitoring: Ensuring fair competition among communication service providers and protecting consumer interests.
2. Accessibility and Affordability: Expanding access to reliable communication services, particularly in underserved areas.
3. Consumer Protection: Safeguarding citizens against exploitation while promoting ethical use of communication services.
The procurement of a misinformation monitoring system, while potentially falling under consumer protection, does little to address MACRA’s broader regulatory obligations.
• Access to Communication: How does this system improve access to communication services for rural or underserved populations?
• Cost of Services: Does this investment reduce the high cost of internet or mobile services in Malawi?
• Digital Literacy: How does the system empower citizens to engage responsibly and effectively in digital spaces?
If MACRA cannot align this procurement with its regulatory framework, it risks being seen as prioritizing institutional power over its public mandate.
Did This Procurement Follow Due Process?
The scale and implications of this procurement demand robust oversight and scrutiny. Yet several critical questions remain unanswered:
• Budgetary Approval: Was this system included in MACRA’s budget and approved by Parliament? If not, how is such a major expenditure justified?
• Public Engagement: Was there any consultation with stakeholders, such as civil society, the private sector, or digital experts, to assess the system’s necessity and relevance?
• Alignment with National Goals: How does this procurement address Malawi’s socio-economic challenges, such as poverty, unemployment, and the digital divide?
Public funds and regulatory revenues cannot be spent arbitrarily. If MACRA bypassed these processes, it undermines the democratic principles it is obligated to uphold.
Socio-Economic Benefits: Still Unclear
For a regulatory authority tasked with improving communication infrastructure and services, the decision to invest in a system of this nature demands clear justification. Yet MACRA has failed to articulate:
• Tangible Outcomes: How will this system benefit ordinary Malawians? Will it lower the cost of communication services? Improve network coverage? Enhance digital skills?
• Job Creation: Will this investment create meaningful employment opportunities for Malawians?
• Economic Priorities: Why is this procurement being prioritized over pressing issues such as improving internet access, expanding rural connectivity, or addressing high tariffs?
Without evidence of concrete benefits, this procurement looks more like institutional grandstanding than a genuine effort to serve the public.
Fake News or Institutional Overreach?
MACRA’s justification for the system hinges on the need to “fight fake news.” While this is a commendable goal, the lack of clarity surrounding its execution raises red flags:
• Who Decides What’s Fake? MACRA has not defined what it considers “fake news.” This ambiguity creates room for misuse, particularly against critical voices, journalists, or political opponents.
• Why Now? Why is fighting misinformation suddenly an urgent priority, and what specific incidents have prompted this decision?
• Existing Legal Frameworks: Malawi already has cybercrime and defamation laws. Why does MACRA need an expensive machine to supplement these frameworks?
This justification feels less like protecting Malawians and more like expanding institutional control.
Privacy and Oversight Concerns
As the designated authority under the Data Protection Act of 2024, MACRA is responsible for protecting personal data and ensuring transparency in its operations. The procurement of this system raises serious privacy concerns:
• Surveillance Risks: MACRA claims the system will not monitor private conversations, but where are the safeguards to ensure this?
• Oversight Mechanisms: What independent body will oversee the use of this system to prevent abuse or misuse?
• Transparency: Will MACRA disclose how the system works, what data it collects, and how this data is used?
Without robust privacy protections and independent oversight, this system poses a significant threat to individual freedoms and democratic values.
MACRA’s Financial Justification: Misleading and Misguided
MACRA claims it expects to make K13.5 billion in profit this year and K20 billion next year. However, this narrative obscures key facts:
• Not a Business: MACRA is a regulator, not a commercial entity. Its revenues are generated from levies and fees imposed on service providers, which are ultimately paid by consumers.
• Use of Funds: How is this surplus being used? Are these funds being reinvested into Malawi’s communication infrastructure or directed to Account Number 1 (the government’s consolidated fund)?
• Priorities: Why is MACRA spending on this system instead of addressing core challenges such as network outages, unaffordable tariffs, or the lack of rural connectivity?
This “profit” is not an achievement—it is a failure to align resources with the needs of the people.
A Call for Accountability and Realignment
MACRA’s decision to procure this system highlights a troubling disconnect between its regulatory mandate and its actions. To restore public trust and accountability, MACRA must:
1. Justify the Procurement: Provide clear, detailed explanations of how this system aligns with its mandate and benefits Malawians.
2. Engage Stakeholders: Ensure that future decisions involve consultations with Parliament, civil society, and digital experts.
3. Focus on Core Priorities: Shift resources toward improving access, affordability, and quality of communication services.
4. Guarantee Privacy Protections: Establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure that the system is not used for surveillance or political control.
Conclusion
MACRA’s procurement of this system, without clear socio-economic benefits or adherence to its regulatory framework, is a betrayal of its mandate and the public trust. Malawians deserve an accountable, transparent, and responsive regulator that prioritizes their needs over institutional ambitions.
Until MACRA provides answers and realigns its actions with its legal obligations, this decision will remain a glaring example of misplaced priorities and governance failure.
Malawians must demand better—and MACRA must deliver.
