CSOs demand accountability over Community Recipient Selection for Global Fund Grant
By Joseph Kayira
Some civil society organisations (CSOs) partnering with the Global Fund to implement health and community programmes in Malawi have questioned the process used by the Malawi Global Fund Coordinating Committee (MGFCC) Secretariat to select the Community Principal Recipient (PR), describing it as irregular, unjust and deliberately exclusionary.
The organisations, whose representatives attended the Community Principal Recipient selection meeting, argue that the process undermined the principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness. They maintain that Malawi deserves a selection process that is credible, inclusive and beyond reproach.
In a press statement issued on July 16, 2026, and signed by Malawi Network of Religious Leaders Living with or Personally Affected by HIV and AIDS (MANERELA+) representative Canon Allie Mwachande and Female Sex Workers Association (FSWA) representative Zinenani Lucy Majawa on behalf of the concerned CSOs, the organisations stressed that their objective is not to oppose any applicant organisation or delay the delivery of essential HIV, tuberculosis and malaria services.
“Our objective is to expose and correct a faulty governance process that risks eroding trust in Malawi’s Global Fund partnership,” the statement reads.
According to the CSOs, there has been a deliberate disregard for governance requirements in the Global Fund funding request process.
They note that the Global Fund Funding Request Instructions provide that under the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway, existing Principal Recipients are ordinarily retained unless the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) formally decides to change the application modality in accordance with its governance procedures.
Mwachande: Co-signed the CSOs press release
The organisations argue that the sequence of events raises serious questions about compliance with these governance requirements.
According to the statement, on April 30, 2026, the CCM Oversight Committee discussed and recommended adoption of the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway. However, the CSOs contend that this remained only a recommendation of the Oversight Committee.
“Eight members attended the meeting and there is no documentary evidence that the recommendation was subsequently presented to, deliberated upon and formally approved by the full CCM,” the statement says.
The CSOs further state that on May 4, 2026, a communication was sent to the Global Fund Secretariat indicating that Malawi would pursue the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway. They note that the letter was signed by the CCM chairperson and vice-chairperson, raising concerns about adherence to established CCM governance and representation arrangements.
The statement further alleges that despite this communication, the CCM Secretariat established and appointed a committee on June 17, 2026, to conduct a Community Principal Recipient selection process.
“If the Grant Ready pathway had already been formally adopted by the CCM, the rationale for initiating a new PR selection process is unclear,” the statement says adding, “Conversely, if the pathway had not yet been formally approved by the full CCM, this raises further questions regarding the basis upon which the communication to the Global Fund was made.”
The CSOs argue that these developments raise legitimate governance concerns regarding whether the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway was formally endorsed by the CCM before being communicated externally and whether the subsequent Community PR selection complied with both Global Fund Funding Request Instructions and the CCM’s governance procedures.
The organisations also questioned several aspects of the process, asking why an Expression of Interest (EOI) was advertised on March 14 if the Principal Recipient had allegedly already been predetermined by April 30. They also queried why a selection team was constituted and applicants invited to participate if, in their view, the process could not legally or procedurally be implemented under the Grant Ready Funding Request pathway.
The CSOs further allege that the subsequent evaluation process was flawed. They claim that the CCM Secretariat initially appointed and operationalised a team of nine evaluators drawn mainly from government institutions and international organisations before the committee’s composition had been finalised and formally endorsed by the CCM, with local civil society representation allegedly not adequately accommodated at that stage.
They also allege that the Secretariat later consolidated results from two separate evaluation sessions while disregarding concerns raised by CSO representatives.
According to the statement, complaints submitted to both the CCM Secretariat and the Global Fund Secretariat in Geneva received responses indicating that the concerns would only be addressed during the next phase because the Principal Recipient had already been selected.
“This response is unacceptable. It undermines transparency, accountability and justice,” the CSOs said.
Among their demands, the organisations are calling for the postponement of the National Dialogue scheduled for July 22–23, 2026, until the governance concerns have been resolved. They are also seeking the immediate suspension of all Grant Cycle processes until the issues raised by the concerned civil society representatives who participated in the Principal Recipient selection process are fully addressed.
In addition, they are demanding that the MGFCC Secretariat provide a clear explanation as to why the Expression of Interest was advertised and why what they describe as a parallel selection process was conducted despite the alleged prior determination of the Principal Recipient.
The CSOs have warned that if their concerns are not addressed, the representatives who participated in the Community Principal Recipient selection process will consider pursuing legal action.
