Readers in Malawi usually arrive with a narrow question: is this brand and this web address on the record, and what happens if something goes wrong. The rules below govern how our checkers answer that, what counts as proof, and where we stop.
What we publish, and what we leave out
Three kinds of information appear in our entries, and they are kept apart: what an official record shows, what an operator says about itself, and what players tell us. They are never merged into a single confident sentence.
Anything we cannot source stays out. That includes licence details the authority has not published, ownership we cannot trace, payout speeds nobody has documented, and promotional terms no longer on file. Where the record is silent, the entry says so. A visible gap is useful to a reader; an invented detail is not.
The evidence tiers behind every claim
Each fact is filed under one of three tiers before a writer may use it, and the tier decides how strongly it may be worded.
| Tier | What counts | How it may be worded |
|---|---|---|
| Primary | Authority registers, the text of the Act, the central bank, a network's own product documentation | Stated as fact, with the date it was read |
| Operator | Terms, help text and public statements from the brand itself | Attributed to the brand, never as verified |
| Player context | Messages, reports and forum threads | Described as unverified reports, with no kwacha figure treated as proven |
Nothing moves up a tier because it appears often. Repetition is not corroboration.
Operator names and registered web addresses
MAGLA publishes a table that pairs named sports-betting operators with registered websites. Our entries follow that pairing exactly: the name as the authority writes it, and the address as the authority records it. Where a brand trades under a shorter name, both forms appear, with the registered one first.
We do not treat two similar brands as one company, and we do not carry a permission across borders. Authorisation granted in another market says nothing about Malawi.
Because the register pairs a name with a web address, the address is the part a reader can verify without help. We print it as plain text and ask readers to compare it character by character with whatever the browser is showing. Small differences matter: an extra word, a different ending, a swapped letter, or a shortened link arriving in a message. No link to a betting site appears in our content, so anything a reader clicks stays inside our own material. The step-by-step checks sit in our checking method.
What the Act text can and cannot settle
The Gaming and Lotteries Act text requires valid authority licences for internet gaming and sports betting. That establishes the requirement. It does not tell a reader whether one named brand holds a current licence today; only the authority's own record can indicate that, on the date it was read.
We set out the statutory position and stop there. Nothing we publish is legal advice, and anyone with a live dispute or a compliance question should take it to a qualified lawyer. Background reading is kept under Malawi gambling law.
Payment and mobile money claims
The Reserve Bank of Malawi is the official source for payment-system oversight, and we treat it that way rather than repeating what betting brands say about their own approvals. Airtel documents how Airtel Money works in Malawi, so the mechanics of that wallet are described from the network's own documentation.
Fees, limits and clearing times are published only where we have seen them stated and dated. We run no cash-out trials, and we never describe a withdrawal we did not observe. Method notes are collected under deposits and withdrawals.
Complaints, allegations and findings
A complaint is an allegation. It stays an allegation in our wording, however convincing it sounds, until a body with authority has recorded a finding.
We ask people for the date, the amount in kwacha, the address they used and any reference the operator gave them, and we ask them to keep their own copies. A pattern across several independent reports may be described as a pattern. A single message is not evidence of fraud, and private individuals are never named. How to raise a case is set out under complaints.
How the green, amber and red marks are set
| Mark | Set when | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Green | A current primary record matches the exact brand and the exact registered address | On the record as read on the stated date |
| Amber | Evidence is thin, mixed, out of date, or the address does not match | Unsettled, treat with care |
| Red | An official adverse record exists, or documented harm is corroborated | A recorded problem, not a rumour |
Amber is the default rather than a penalty, and it is where most entries begin. A green mark is never a promise of safety: it reports a record, and records change.
Dates, re-checks and corrections
Every fact carries the date it was last read, because a register entry is only true as of that reading. Entries are re-read on a schedule, and again whenever a reader or a source suggests something has moved.
Corrections are made openly. Where a claim was wrong, it is fixed and the change is noted with its date; content is not quietly rewritten to look as though the error never happened. A correction request is easiest to act on when it names the entry and points to the record that contradicts us.
Money, independence and where we stop
No operator sees our content before publication, and no brand can pay for a mark, a placement or a softer sentence. Any commercial arrangement is disclosed on the entry it affects and has no bearing on the evidence tiers or the mark.
We also stop short of some things readers ask for. We do not predict results, rank brands by how enjoyable they are, or tell anyone that gambling will be safe for them. Where money or control is slipping, support matters more than any comparison.
The records we work from
| Reference | What it establishes | Address |
|---|---|---|
| MW-REG-001 | Authority table pairing named sports-betting operators with registered websites | https://magla.org.mw/licensed-operators/ |
| MW-LAW-001 | Licence requirement for internet gaming and sports betting | https://parliament.gov.mw/uploads/doc_bills/doc_bills_43343698-4436-4ebd-a725-33f3bc1378b31688451161254.pdf |
| MW-RBM-001 | Official source for payment-system oversight in Malawi | https://www.rbm.mw/PaymentSystems/ |
| MW-AIRTEL-001 | How Airtel Money works in Malawi | https://www.airtel.mw/airtelmoney/howItWork |
magla.org.mw · parliament.gov.mw · rbm.mw · airtel.mw
Common questions
Why do most entries carry an amber mark?
Amber is the starting point for everything we open. It moves only when a current primary record matches the exact brand and address, or when an adverse record is on file. Thin or ageing evidence keeps an entry amber.
Does a green mark mean a brand is safe to use?
No. A green mark reports what a record showed on the date it was read. Registers are updated, licences lapse and addresses change, so a mark describes a record rather than an outcome for any individual.
Will you publish my complaint about an operator?
Unverified reports are described as reports, never as proven findings, and they carry no names of private individuals. Where several independent accounts line up, we may describe the pattern and the dates involved.
Why are there no links to betting sites?
Sending readers straight to a brand removes the one check they can do themselves. We print the registered address as text instead, so the comparison happens in the browser bar rather than on trust.