Listen to this article

By Suleman Chitera
Malawi Freedom Network
25 August 2026

Malawi stands at a mining crossroads

Malawi is entering a potentially transformative period for its mining industry, with uranium, rare earths, rutile, graphite and niobium projects attracting increasing attention from international investors.

But alongside the promise of foreign exchange, jobs and economic growth is a growing question that Malawi cannot afford to ignore:

Will the country’s mineral wealth deliver lasting benefits to Malawians, or will valuable resources leave the country while communities and taxpayers receive only a fraction of the returns?

The question has become particularly important as several major mining projects move closer to development while concerns about ownership, licensing, transparency, community benefits and government oversight continue to emerge.

The Mining and Minerals Regulatory Authority currently publishes licences and mining development agreements covering projects including Kayelekera, Songwe Hill and Kanyika, demonstrating the increasingly active pipeline of mining developments in Malawi.

The United States Department of Commerce also identifies several rare earth, rutile, graphite and niobium projects planned in Malawi, with anticipated development over the coming years.

For a country whose economy remains heavily dependent on agriculture, the mining expansion could become one of Malawi’s most important economic stories of the next decade.

But it could also become one of its biggest governance tests.

The mineral boom is no longer just a promise

For years, Malawi has been described as a country with considerable mineral potential but a relatively small mining industry.

That picture is changing.

The return of uranium production at Kayelekera, developments surrounding rare earth projects and increasing interest in rutile and graphite have placed Malawi more firmly on the global critical-minerals map.

The Government has also been promoting investment in the sector and seeking to strengthen the regulatory framework.

Its Mining Investment Forum has highlighted sustainable investment, stronger institutions, local value addition and beneficiation as important components of Malawi’s mining strategy.

That last issue is particularly important.

If Malawi simply exports raw minerals, much of the economic value may be captured outside the country.

If, however, minerals are processed locally, the country can potentially create additional employment, businesses, technical skills, tax revenues and industrial capacity.

This is the difference between mining for extraction and mining for economic transformation.

Songwe Hill: Malawi’s rare-earth opportunity

One of the projects attracting international attention is the Songwe Hill Rare Earths Project.

The project is being advanced by Mkango Resources and its partners, with plans involving mining, processing and rare-earth separation.

In March 2026, Mkango announced an updated feasibility study that put the initial capital expenditure for the Malawi mining, milling, flotation and hydrometallurgy facilities at approximately US$325.5 million. A separate rare-earth separation plant planned in Poland was estimated at approximately US$212 million.

Rare earth elements are strategically important because they are used in technologies including electric vehicles, renewable-energy equipment, electronics and advanced industrial applications.

That means Malawi’s mineral deposits are increasingly relevant not only to local investors but also to global supply-chain competition.

The opportunity is therefore much bigger than simply selling minerals.

It is about where Malawi positions itself in the international critical-minerals economy.

But questions about ownership cannot be ignored

The potential economic value of Malawi’s mining resources has also brought serious governance questions.

An investigation published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and its partners in February 2026 examined the ownership of Mawei Mining Company, which holds a heavy-mineral-sands concession near Makanjira.

The investigation reported that entities linked to Chinese state interests had acquired control of the project’s parent company through ownership changes that Malawian officials said they had not been aware of.

The project is believed to contain large quantities of heavy mineral sands, including zircon, titanium and monazite, which can contain rare earth elements.

The investigation prompted the Malawi Government to announce a fact-finding exercise into the ownership changes and compliance with mining laws.

This development raises an important national issue:

Who ultimately owns Malawi’s mineral assets?

The answer should not be hidden behind complicated corporate structures registered in offshore jurisdictions.

Malawians have a legitimate interest in knowing who controls companies holding strategic mineral licences, who benefits financially and whether changes in beneficial ownership comply with Malawi’s laws.

Licensing is becoming another major test

Ownership is not the only issue.

Licensing and regulatory compliance have also come under increased scrutiny.

In August 2026, Attorney General Frank Mbeta directed mining companies to comply strictly with licensing requirements, warning that firms that fail to comply could face closure.

The Government’s directive came amid questions surrounding the Kangankunde Rare Earths Project in Balaka.

Rift Valley Resource Developments Limited has applied to upgrade its licence from medium-scale to large-scale, with the Mining and Minerals Regulatory Authority confirming receipt of the application.

The development illustrates why licensing classifications matter.

A major mining operation should be regulated according to its actual scale, investment, environmental footprint and potential impact on surrounding communities.

The law must apply consistently to both domestic and foreign investors.

The Makanjira case should be a warning

The controversy surrounding the Makanjira project offers a broader lesson.

Malawi needs a mining sector in which investment is welcomed but oversight is never sacrificed.

Foreign capital is necessary for large-scale mining because major projects require enormous amounts of financing, technology, engineering expertise and infrastructure.

But attracting investors should not mean giving investors unlimited discretion.

The Government must know:

Who owns every mining company operating in Malawi?
Who are the ultimate beneficial owners?
How much investment has actually entered the country?
How much mineral wealth is expected to be extracted?
What royalties and taxes will Malawi receive?
How many Malawians will be employed?
What infrastructure will mining companies provide?
What environmental obligations will companies carry?
What happens when a company changes ownership?
How much of the mineral will be processed inside Malawi?
How will affected communities benefit?

These questions should be answered before large-scale extraction begins, not after problems emerge.

Communities must not be spectators

Mining projects are often promoted using impressive figures about investment and exports.

But for people living near mining sites, the most important questions are often much simpler.

Will there be jobs?

Will roads improve?

Will electricity reach communities?

Will local businesses receive contracts?

Will schools and health facilities benefit?

Will families affected by mining receive fair compensation?

The Makanjira investigation reported frustration among community members who said promised development benefits had not materialised while the mining project remained largely stalled.

This demonstrates why community development agreements and other legal safeguards must be treated as enforceable commitments rather than public-relations documents.

The Government should publish agreements and monitor whether companies actually deliver what they promise.

Malawi must learn from other African mining countries

The global competition for critical minerals is intensifying.

African countries possess enormous quantities of minerals needed for electric vehicles, renewable energy, defence technologies, electronics and other industries.

But a major challenge remains: much of Africa’s mineral wealth is exported without significant processing on the continent.

Recent African policy debates have therefore increasingly focused on local beneficiation, meaning processing minerals closer to where they are extracted.

That shift is driven by a simple economic calculation.

Exporting raw ore creates some employment and government revenue.

Processing, refining and manufacturing can potentially create far greater economic value.

Malawi should therefore resist the temptation to measure mining success purely by the value of minerals exported.

The better question is:

How much of that mineral value remains in Malawi?

The sovereign wealth fund question

Another major issue is what Malawi will do with mining revenues if the sector expands significantly.

A May 2026 investigation by the Center for Investigative Journalism Malawi reported concerns that Malawi was moving toward monetising major mineral resources without yet having a fully established sovereign wealth law to protect future revenues.

This is a critical debate.

Mining revenues can rise rapidly when commodity prices are favourable, but mineral deposits are finite.

If the country spends all mining revenues on short-term consumption, future generations may inherit exhausted mines without having inherited sufficient infrastructure, industries, education or financial assets.

A properly governed sovereign wealth mechanism could help convert temporary mineral income into long-term national assets.

But such a fund would only work if it has strong legal protections, transparency, parliamentary oversight and independent management.

Malawi needs maximum transparency

The mining boom should therefore be accompanied by an unprecedented level of public disclosure.

The Government should make it easy for citizens to find:

Mining licences.
Mining development agreements.
Beneficial ownership information.
Environmental impact assessments.
Community development agreements.
Production figures.
Export volumes.
Royalties and taxes paid.
Government equity interests.
Company compliance records.
Environmental monitoring reports.
Mine closure and rehabilitation plans.

The Mining and Minerals Regulatory Authority already provides a public platform containing various mining licences and development agreements.

The next step should be ensuring that this information is comprehensive, searchable, regularly updated and understandable to ordinary Malawians.

Transparency should not be treated as an obstacle to investment.

It is part of responsible investment.

The biggest opportunity may be bigger than the mines

Malawi’s mining boom should not be judged only by how many mines eventually open.

The real opportunity is to use mining as a catalyst for broader industrialisation.

Mining can create demand for:

Engineering companies.
Transport operators.
Construction firms.
Equipment suppliers.
Environmental consultants.
Laboratory services.
Accountancy and legal firms.
Information technology businesses.
Security companies.
Local manufacturers.
Training institutions.

If government policy deliberately connects mining projects to Malawian businesses, the sector could stimulate economic activity far beyond the mine gates.

But that requires deliberate policy.

Simply hoping that mining investment will automatically transform the economy is not enough.

A new mining era — but with a new contract

Malawi now appears to be moving from an era of mineral exploration toward a period in which several strategic projects could become operational.

That transition demands a new national conversation.

The country needs investment.

It needs foreign exchange.

It needs jobs.

It needs infrastructure.

And it needs to diversify its economy.

But Malawi also needs to protect its mineral wealth from opaque ownership structures, weak enforcement, poor contracts, environmental damage and short-term political interests.

The country should welcome responsible investors while making one principle non-negotiable:

Malawi’s mineral wealth must generate lasting value for Malawians.

The coming years could determine whether the mining boom becomes a genuine economic turning point or another chapter in which Malawi exports its natural resources while importing the finished wealth.

That is why the mining sector deserves continuous investigation, public scrutiny and evidence-based reporting.

For Malawi Freedom Network, this should be treated not as a one-day news story, but as a long-term investigative beat covering every major mining licence, ownership change, development agreement, community promise, environmental assessment, production figure and government revenue.

Because the biggest mining story in Malawi may not be the discovery of another mineral.

It may be the question of who ultimately benefits from the minerals Malawi already has.