Op-ed | How Surveillance Technology Could Stifle Opposition in Malawi’s 2025 Elections

This piece by Gregory Gondwe was first published by investigativeplatform-mw.

As Malawi approaches its tripartite elections in September 2025, the government’s expanding surveillance infrastructure raises concerns about its potential to be used for political repression.

Both the Cellebrite UFED system, capable of extracting deleted data from phones and computers, and the Central Equipment Identity Register (CEIR), which tracks and blocks mobile devices, represent powerful tools that could be used to monitor and suppress opposition activity. These technologies, while ostensibly introduced for combating cybercrime and fraud, present significant risks to civil liberties and democratic processes, especially in a country with a repute of state surveillance.

The implications of these tools are profound, particularly given Malawi’s lack of comprehensive data protection laws. In a tense pre-election atmosphere, their misuse could lead to the silencing of critical voices and the undermining of fair political competition. What’s at stake is not just the privacy of individuals but the very integrity of the upcoming elections.

The Threat of State Surveillance

The CEIR, implemented by the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority (MACRA), is designed to block stolen phones and SIM cards, ostensibly to curb fraud. It can block both a mobile device and the SIM card associated with it, effectively tracking users through the device’s International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) number. But its capabilities go beyond combating phone theft. Coupled with compulsory SIM card registration, the system allows the state to track citizens’ mobile devices, raising concerns that it could be used for surveillance during the elections.

Even more troubling is the Cellebrite UFED, a tool with the ability to retrieve deleted data from phones and laptops, decrypt passwords, and access cloud storage. A recent investigation by the Platform for Investigative Journalism (PIJ) revealed that MACRA, which initially denied having such technology, is now using the system through its cybersecurity unit. The Malawi Revenue Authority (MRA) also possesses a similar tool, which it claims is used for investigating tax evasion. However, the potential for this technology to be repurposed for monitoring opposition leaders, journalists, and activists is alarming.

These surveillance tools enable the state to gather massive amounts of personal information, track communications, and access private data. In the context of Malawi’s upcoming elections, this creates a chilling effect on political participation. Opposition figures may hesitate to communicate freely, fearing their private conversations will be intercepted. Journalists may censor themselves to avoid retaliation, and activists might retreat from public discourse.

A History of Surveillance Misuse

The use of surveillance technologies to silence dissent in Malawi is not hypothetical. In 2022, Freedom House reported incidents where the government allegedly monitored private communications without legal authority. One notable case involved the arrest of a citizen for comments made on an encrypted platform. Similarly, journalists like Gregory Gondwe, who leads the Platform for Investigative Journalism, have been targeted by police attempting to access their devices, raising concerns about press freedom and the safety of whistleblowers.

While MACRA and other government agencies maintain that their surveillance systems are used within legal frameworks, these assurances are undermined by the lack of transparency and oversight. Malawi’s Communications Act of 2016 offers limited protection of subscriber data, and there are no robust data protection laws in place to regulate the use of powerful tools like Cellebrite and the CEIR. Without these safeguards, surveillance could easily be abused for political gain, especially in an election period.

The Digital Divide and the Cost of Surveillance

The introduction of the CEIR has been framed as necessary to combat fraud and protect consumers from mobile theft. Yet, its implementation could also disenfranchise many Malawians. The system has the potential to block counterfeit mobile phones, which are commonly used by low-income citizens who cannot afford high-end devices. While MACRA insists this is a necessary measure for quality control, the result may be to cut off significant portions of the population from digital services—services that are increasingly vital for political engagement and participation.

At the same time, the government has spent millions on building this surveillance infrastructure. According to PIJ’s findings, Malawi has invested $27 million in surveillance technologies, money that could have been allocated to critical public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. This level of spending raises questions about the government’s priorities: Why invest so heavily in surveillance at a time when the country faces pressing social and economic challenges? And who ultimately benefits from these investments?

The Danger of Silence

One of the most concerning aspects of this growing surveillance state is the silence that surrounds it. While civil society organizations like PIJ and rights activists such as Jimmy Kainja have raised alarms, much of the public remains unaware of the true extent of the government’s capabilities. Even media organizations have expressed concerns about state surveillance, fearing that tools like the Cellebrite UFED could be used to identify sources, intercept communications, and compromise the safety of whistle-blowers.

This atmosphere of fear and uncertainty risks undermining the democratic process itself. Free speech, privacy, and the ability to organize without state interference are essential components of a healthy democracy. If opposition leaders, journalists, and activists believe they are being watched, they may refrain from challenging the government or exposing wrongdoing. In the lead-up to the 2025 elections, such self-censorship could have devastating consequences for Malawi’s democracy.

The Way Forward: Safeguarding Democracy

To protect democratic freedoms, Malawi must enact comprehensive data protection laws that provide strong safeguards against the misuse of surveillance technologies. These laws should include judicial oversight, strict limits on data collection, and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that surveillance is used only for legitimate security purposes and not for political repression. Without such protections, the potential for abuse is too great, and the cost to Malawi’s democracy too high.

Moreover, civil society must continue to push for transparency. The public has a right to know how these technologies are being used, and to what extent their data is being monitored. International observers, too, should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the government during the 2025 elections, ensuring that surveillance tools are not used to intimidate or suppress political opposition.

In conclusion, while technologies like the Cellebrite UFED and the CEIR may have legitimate applications in combating crime, their potential for misuse in the context of Malawi’s upcoming elections is deeply concerning. If these tools are used to monitor and suppress the opposition, the elections may be neither free nor fair. The government must act now to ensure that surveillance does not become a tool of political control but remains, as it should be, a means of protecting citizens. As the election draws near, the world will be watching to see how Malawi navigates this delicate balance between security and privacy.

This article was commissioned by Intelwatch, which is dedicated to strengthening public oversight of state and private intelligence agencies in Southern Africa and around the world.