LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-June 2025 Global Fund’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report that identified non-compliant expenditures linked to World Vision Malawi — which says it self-detected the issues and took corrective action — together with a disputed signature on a key pathway document, parallel PR assessment tracks and civil society petitions alleging nine policy breaches, is likely to overshadow a restarted Community Principal Recipient selection set for the coming days.
The OIG findings form part of a wider set of governance questions surrounding Malawi’s preparation for its next major health grant, more than a decade after the National AIDS Commission lost Principal Recipient status following earlier concerns over the management of Global Fund resources.
A fresh Community PR selection is scheduled to take place in the coming days after civil society petitions led to a restart of the process.
Details of the OIG Findings
The OIG report, dated 5 June 2025, examined activities implemented by World Vision Malawi between 2020 and 2021, particularly procurement linked to Indoor Residual Spraying campaigns.
According to the report, a local vehicle supplier, Planet Car Hire, submitted 13 invoices that the OIG determined were fraudulent, resulting in US$46,922 in non-compliant transactions.
Some vehicles listed as 13 seater Land Cruisers, SUVs or buses were found to be registered as motorcycles or small cars.
The OIG concluded they were unsuitable for transporting personnel and equipment. One vehicle listed in the documentation was owned by a third party who confirmed it had never been subleased for the programme.
Three summary invoices worth US$27,284 covering 40 vehicles lacked supporting individual invoices.
Thirty five of the 40 vehicle reference numbers were duplicates of previously paid periods. The supplier did not provide documentation requested by investigators.
Separately, the OIG identified two payment requisitions processed by WVM finance staff amounting to US$22,122 that it concluded were compromised by fraudulent practices.
In one case, a second payment was made to a bank account that did not belong to the supplier or its general manager.
In another, a delivery note signature supporting a duplicate payment was found to have been forged.
A further US$56,857 in vehicle hire expenditure could not be verified because 15 billing documents lacked sufficient supporting evidence.
The investigation found that 165 out of 510 vehicles did not appear in inspection reports, and that the organisation had not fully communicated the Global Fund Code of Conduct for Suppliers to all suppliers as required under the grant agreement.
Because of documentation weaknesses, the OIG said it could not confirm whether some malaria activities “actually took place as reported
The total amount classified as non-compliant expenditure was US$125,901.
World Vision Malawi’s Response During the OIG Investigation
According to the OIG report, World Vision Malawi responded during the investigation, submitting explanations on 11 December 2024, 18 December 2024 and 9 April 2025 following theNotice of Findings.
The organisation provided explanations relating to documentation challenges, subcontracting arrangements, possible reassignment of vehicle registration numbers and other issues. The OIG considered those responses and removed some transactions where explanations were accepted.
On the supplier fraud findings, WVM did not contest the fraudulent practices identified by the OIG but argued that some losses overlapped with amounts identified through an earlier World Vision International internal investigation. WVM requested adjustments to avoid double counting. The OIG found only US$3,490 in overlap and maintained the remaining findings.
World Vision Malawi served as Principal Recipient for one of Malawi’s malaria grants from 2016 to 2023 and continues as a PR for a TB/HIV grant under Grant Cycle 8.
Between 2021 and 2023, it implemented approximately US$33 million in Global Fund-supported activities, with travel-related costs, including vehicle hire, accounting for US$11.5 million or about 32 percent of that amount.
The OIG findings are now part of a broader discussion about whether Malawi’s systems have sufficient safeguards to manage future Global Fund investments.
World Vision Malawi’s Fresh Response
In a statement issued, Country Director Francis Dube said the losses referenced in the OIG report related to incidents identified in 2020.
“World Vision Malawi itself detected the irregularities through its internal oversight mechanisms, conducted investigations, and reported the matter to the Global Fund Office of the Inspector General,” Dube said.
“The OIG subsequently undertook an independent validation investigation to confirm the findings and assess the adequacy of corrective actions taken.”
By the time the OIG completed its work, he said, the agreed corrective measures had already been implemented.
According to Dube, World Vision Malawi terminated relationships with implicated entities, ended the employment of staff found to have breached organisational standards, reimbursed the Global Fund where required, pursued recoveries from companies involved, blacklisted offending suppliers, and strengthened internal systems and controls, including investments in digitalised document management and enhanced oversight mechanisms.
“The manner in which these issues were identified and addressed reflects the strength of World Vision Malawi’s accountability systems,” he said.
Dube also pointed to subsequent performance,which he said reflected sustained progress in programme delivery, financial stewardship, compliance and risk management.
On Grant Cycle 8, he said World Vision Malawi remains available and ready to continue serving as a Principal Recipient should it be selected through the appropriate country-led processes.
Gridlock in the Selection of PR Process
Meanwhile, the PR selection process for GC8 has faced questions over the approval of the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway, the structure of the PR selection exercise, a disputed signature image on a key submission document, and concerns raised by civil society representatives about compliance with Global Fund governance requirements.
At the centre of the debate is how Malawi’s Country Coordinating Mechanism — the multi-stakeholder body responsible for coordinating Global Fund applications — handled decisions on the submission pathway and Principal Recipient nominations.
Civil society representatives submitted formal petitions highlighting nine alleged policy breaches, arguing that the selection process lacked adequate transparency and collective participation.
Following these concerns, the Malawi Global Fund Coordinating Committee agreed on 22 July 2026 to restart the Community PR selection process with additional safeguards.
The findings have added scrutiny to Malawi’s grant management systems, but the debate extends beyond any single organisation, raising wider questions about procurement controls, oversight, documentation standards and the strength of governance arrangements responsible for managing millions of dollars in health financing.
Disputed Signature Raises Governance Questions
Another major issue concerns a Confirmation of Submission Pathway and PR Nomination Form dated 4 May 2026. The document recorded Malawi’s intention to use the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway for Window 3 submission and listed the Ministry of Health and World Vision Malawi as continuing Principal Recipients.
On 22 July 2026, CCM Chairperson Dr. Cliff K. Chiunda met civil society representatives, who presented him with a copy of the document. According to revised meeting minutes, Chiunda said the signature appearing on the document was an image of his signature rather than one personally signed by him.
“When the printed communication was presented during the meeting, the Chairperson stated that the signature appearing on the document was an image of his signature rather than a signature personally affixed by him. He further stated that he did not recall authorizing anyone to use the image of his signature on that document.”
He also stated that he had not signed the letter communicating the Grant Ready Submission Pathway to the Global Fund and had not signed Global Fund or CCM correspondence since January 2026.
Chiunda further questioned the second signature on the document, saying that under CCM governance arrangements the communication should have been co-signed by CCM Vice Chairperson and Civil Society Co-Chairperson Bishop Silent Mtambo.
No independent forensic examination of the signature image has publicly been reported, and the CCM Secretariat has not publicly explained how the image was placed on the document or who authorised its transmission.
Civil society representatives argued that the pathway decision could not be considered binding because they believed it had not received documented approval from the full CCM.
Selection Process Under Review
The Grant Ready pathway recommendation originated from a 30 April 2026 virtual meeting of the CCM Oversight Committee chaired by Dr. Atupele Kapito.
Minutes indicate that members were informed of the need to urgently confirm the submission pathway following discussions with the Global Fund Country Team.
The committee recommended that Malawi proceed with a Grant Ready Funding Request for Window 3, with submission scheduled for 5 October 2026. Eight members attended the meeting, and the recommendation was expected to be presented to the full CCM.
Civil society representatives later said they could not find evidence that the recommendation was formally presented, discussed or approved by the full CCM.
Despite the pathway decision, the CCM Secretariat launched a competitive process for a new Community Principal Recipient.
This created questions among civil society members about why organisations were invited to apply if the pathway had already identified continuing PR arrangements.
In a 6 July 2026 letter to Executive Secretary Cuthbert Q. Nyirenda, CSO selection-committee members Treza Mphwatiwa, Zinenani Majawa and Allie Mwachande asked:
“If the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway had already been approved and communicated to the Global Fund on 3 May 2026, why was a competitive CSO Principal Recipient selection process subsequently initiated? What governance justification existed for commencing a process whose outcome, according to your communication, could not legally or procedurally be implemented? … Why were eligible organizations invited to prepare and submit applications, undergo evaluation and invest considerable resources in a competitive process whose outcome could not be adopted?”
The questions remain unanswered publicly.
Selection Restarted After Civil Society Complaints
On 19 June 2026, four civil society representatives on the PR assessment committee submitted a complaint to the MGFCC Secretariat, arguing that the assessment process had effectively operated through two parallel groups.
They said four CSO representatives assessed applications separately from an original group of nine members.
According to their complaint, the two groups received different orientations, no joint harmonisation meeting was held, and scores from the original nine assessors were not shared with the CSO representatives.
A July petition identified nine alleged breaches of the CCM Code of Ethical Conduct and CCM Policy requirements. Following these complaints, the MGFCC agreed on 22 July to restart the selection process.
The revised process will include:
- A reconstituted committee with at least 60 percent CSO representation;
- Parallel submission of applications to the CCM Secretariat and an independent entity;
- A fresh call for applications requiring previous applicants to resubmit;
- Communication of the agreed process to stakeholders.
A History of Grant Management Challenges
The current concerns have also revived memories of earlier challenges involving Global Fund-supported programmes in Malawi.
In 2014, public reporting indicated that the Global Fund sought repayment of US$937,905 from Malawi as part of recovery efforts linked to earlier grant audits.
A 2012 OIG audit covering grants implemented between 2003 and 2010 identified millions of dollars in unsupported or non-compliant expenditures involving the National AIDS Commission and other implementers.
At the time, reported explanations included missing documentation during office relocations and difficulties conducting physical verification of vehicles purchased outside agreed work plans. The recovery processes that followed increased scrutiny of Malawi’s systems for financial management, procurement and oversight.
Civil society representatives argue that the latest concerns must therefore be viewed within a broader history of ensuring strong fiduciary controls around donor-funded programmes.
Health governance experts caution, however, that individual findings must be considered within the wider purpose of Global Fund support — ensuring uninterrupted access to HIV, tuberculosis and malaria services.
The Bigger Question
Civil society concerns have placed Malawi’s Global Fund governance arrangements under increased attention ahead of the GC8 submission.
Maziko Matemba, a civil society health activist and former CCM civil society representative, said the focus must remain on protecting health services while strengthening accountability systems.
Matemba said the Global Fund’s priority remains ensuring that patients continue receiving HIV, malaria and tuberculosis services.
“Global funding is a process,” he said, adding that financial and programme concerns are handled through established mechanisms.
He warned, however, that countries must maintain strong governance because donor confidence depends on effective management of public resources.
Malawi now faces the challenge of demonstrating that its systems can deliver both accountability and continuity.
The upcoming Community PR selection is therefore more than an administrative exercise.
It represents a test of whether Malawi can strengthen confidence in the institutions responsible for managing critical health investments before entering the next phase of Global Fund support.
Leave a Reply