Constrained
This is the weighted total of the four scored pillars.
Assessment windowJanuary 1–December 31, 2025
Research cutoffJuly 17, 2026
FrameworkMethodology v0.3 · 20 indicators
Territory coverageMozambique
Finding
01Why Mozambique received this score.
Shutdowns and platform restrictions, violence affecting journalists and protesters, surveillance concerns, conflict, and weak accountability constrain online freedom.
The score draws on country reporting, network measurements, shutdown records, journalist cases, privacy law, and rule-of-law data. The indicator findings below show how that evidence was converted into points. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Privacy, Anonymity & User Security
Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
Rule of Law & Accountability
Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
Standard coverage
8 cited sources support this assessment.
Scored assessment
02Indicator scores.
Each indicator receives 0–4 points. Five indicators form a pillar. The pillar average is converted to a percentage and multiplied by its published weight.
B
30% weight
Open Internet & Content Controls
Shutdowns, throttling, or platform restrictions have been used during protests, elections, conflict, or unrest.
55.016.5 / 30 points
B1Shutdowns and throttling1.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Authorities restricted connectivity and social platforms during the disputed 2024 election and ensuing protests, while most services remained available outside crisis periods.; DSP's 2025 shutdown-practice estimate 3/4; social-media shutdown estimate 3/4; OONI measurements and the Access Now shutdown record provide the incident check. [2][3][4][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's B1 evidence supports 1.5/4. Restrictions are widespread, although limited protection remains.
B2Website and service blocking2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Authorities restricted connectivity and social platforms during the disputed 2024 election and ensuing protests, while most services remained available outside crisis periods.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 2/4; DSP's 2025 political-filtering estimate 3/4; the country OONI dashboard supplies direct network measurements. [3][1][4]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's B2 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
B3Removal and filtering orders2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Authorities restricted connectivity and social platforms during the disputed 2024 election and ensuing protests, while most services remained available outside crisis periods.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 2/4; DSP's 2025 political-content censorship estimate 3/4; online-speech legal protection 4/4. [2][1][3][4]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's B3 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
B4Intermediary liability2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Authorities restricted connectivity and social platforms during the disputed 2024 election and ensuing protests, while most services remained available outside crisis periods.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 4/4; protection against legal abuse by political elites 2/4. [2][1][3][4]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's B4 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
B5Circumvention and cross-border access2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Authorities restricted connectivity and social platforms during the disputed 2024 election and ensuing protests, while most services remained available outside crisis periods.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 2/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 3/4; independence from state-controlled social platforms 3/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the circumvention check. [3][1][4]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's B5 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
C
30% weight
Free Expression & Civic Space
Violence, harassment, or impunity materially limits journalism and civic participation online.
50.015.0 / 30 points
C1Legal protection for expression2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Journalists reporting on corruption, elections, and the Cabo Delgado conflict face threats, attacks, detention, and severe access restrictions.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and private discussion 2/4; DSP's online-speech legal protection estimate 4/4; WJP's effective-expression measure 1.5/4; the relevant Freedom House country score 42/100. [1][7][5][8]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's C1 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
C2Speech-related offenses2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Journalists reporting on corruption, elections, and the Cabo Delgado conflict face threats, attacks, detention, and severe access restrictions.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection against abuse of defamation and copyright law 2/4; Freedom House country reporting supplies the offense and enforcement record. [2][1][5][8]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's C2 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
C3Arrests and penalties1.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Journalists reporting on corruption, elections, and the Cabo Delgado conflict face threats, attacks, detention, and severe access restrictions.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded due process 2/4 and equal treatment under law 1/4; DSP's 2025 political-arrest estimate 1/3; CPJ and Freedom House records provide the documented case check. [2][5][1][8]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's C3 evidence supports 1.0/4. The right is severely restricted and effective safeguards are weak.
C4Harassment, violence, and digital attacks2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Journalists reporting on corruption, elections, and the Cabo Delgado conflict face threats, attacks, detention, and severe access restrictions.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and equal treatment under law 1/4; the 2026 RSF press-freedom score 52.3/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the violence, harassment, and accountability record. [5][8][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's C4 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
C5Civic participation and pluralism2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Journalists reporting on corruption, elections, and the Cabo Delgado conflict face threats, attacks, detention, and severe access restrictions.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded political choice free from domination 1/4 and assembly freedom 0/4; DSP's online-media pluralism estimate 3/4; ordinary people's online civic-mobilization estimate 3/4; WJP's civic-participation measure 1.6/4. [2][1][5][8]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's C5 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
D
20% weight
Privacy, Anonymity & User Security
Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
60.012.0 / 20 points
D1Data protection rights2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Protest monitoring, weak data safeguards, and security operations create material risks for political users despite continued availability of secure communication tools.; DSP's privacy-law existence measure 1/1; privacy-law constraint on government access 4/4; WJP's effective-privacy measure 0.8/4. [6][1][2][7]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's D1 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
D2Surveillance law and authorization2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Protest monitoring, weak data safeguards, and security operations create material risks for political users despite continued availability of secure communication tools.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's protection from political social-media monitoring 3/4; WJP's effective-privacy measure 0.8/4. [1][7][2]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's D2 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
D3Retention, access, and identity mandates3.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Protest monitoring, weak data safeguards, and security operations create material risks for political users despite continued availability of secure communication tools.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 2/4 and due process 2/4; DSP's privacy-law constraint on government access 4/4; protection from political monitoring 3/4; UNCTAD and Freedom House records provide the retention and identity-law check. [1][6][2][7]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's D3 evidence supports 3.0/4. Protection is generally effective, with recurring but bounded shortcomings.
D4Targeted surveillance and spyware2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Protest monitoring, weak data safeguards, and security operations create material risks for political users despite continued availability of secure communication tools.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded media freedom 2/4 and equal treatment under law 1/4; DSP's protection from political monitoring 3/4; the RSF press-freedom environment 52.3/100; CPJ and Freedom House reporting provide the targeted-surveillance case record. [5][1][2][7]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's D4 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
D5Encryption and anonymity2.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Protest monitoring, weak data safeguards, and security operations create material risks for political users despite continued availability of secure communication tools.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded private discussion 2/4; DSP's political-filtering estimate 3/4; protection from political monitoring 3/4; OONI and Freedom House records provide the encryption and anonymity check. [3][1][2][7]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's D5 evidence supports 2.5/4. Meaningful safeguards coexist with material restrictions.
E
20% weight
Rule of Law & Accountability
Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
35.07.0 / 20 points
E1Judicial independence and due process1.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Ruling-party dominance, disputed elections, postelection violence, and weak accountability sharply limit judicial and regulatory remedies.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; WJP's judicial-constraint measure 1.6/4; administrative due-process measure 1.2/4; civil-justice independence measure 1.1/4. [7][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's E1 evidence supports 1.0/4. The right is severely restricted and effective safeguards are weak.
E2Independent regulators1.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Ruling-party dominance, disputed elections, postelection violence, and weak accountability sharply limit judicial and regulatory remedies.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded government safeguards against corruption 1/4 and government openness and transparency 2/4; WJP's independent-review measure 1.6/4; regulatory independence measure 1.9/4. [7][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's E2 evidence supports 1.0/4. The right is severely restricted and effective safeguards are weak.
E3Government transparency1.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Ruling-party dominance, disputed elections, postelection violence, and weak accountability sharply limit judicial and regulatory remedies.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded government openness and transparency 2/4; WJP's publicized-laws measure 0.7/4; right-to-information measure 1.2/4. [7][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's E3 evidence supports 1.5/4. Restrictions are widespread, although limited protection remains.
E4Notice, appeal, and remedy1.5 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Ruling-party dominance, disputed elections, postelection violence, and weak accountability sharply limit judicial and regulatory remedies.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded judicial independence 2/4 and due process 2/4; WJP's complaint-mechanisms measure 2.1/4; civil-justice access measure 1.8/4; civil-justice enforcement measure 1.6/4. [7][1]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's E4 evidence supports 1.5/4. Restrictions are widespread, although limited protection remains.
E5Open and multistakeholder policymaking2.0 / 4
Observed record
Mozambique: Ruling-party dominance, disputed elections, postelection violence, and weak accountability sharply limit judicial and regulatory remedies.; Freedom House's 2026 country scorecard recorded elected officials' authority 1/4 and assembly freedom 0/4; WJP's civic-participation measure 1.6/4; DSP's online civic-mobilization estimate 3/4. [2][1][7]
Scoring judgment
Mozambique's E5 evidence supports 2.0/4. Restrictions are recurrent and safeguards are only partly effective.
Country findings
03Findings by pillar.
These are the principal findings for each scored part of the report. The indicator records above provide the supporting detail.
Open Internet & Content Controls
Shutdowns, throttling, or platform restrictions have been used during protests, elections, conflict, or unrest.
[2][3][4]Free Expression & Civic Space
Violence, harassment, or impunity materially limits journalism and civic participation online.
[2][5][8]Privacy, Anonymity & User Security
Broad surveillance powers and limited independent authorization weaken privacy and anonymity.
[6][1]Rule of Law & Accountability
Oversight and remedies are weak, selective, or difficult to use against state digital powers.
[7][1]Research record
04Coverage
Mozambique, assessed from January 1 through December 31, 2025.
Evidence
Network measurements, legal and institutional datasets, shutdown records, and documented cases support the findings.
Scoring
Twenty indicators measure content openness, expression, privacy, security, and institutional checks under Methodology v0.3.
Source register
05Sources used for this report.
Country reporting, open measurements, and cross-national datasets form the report record.
- 01Freedom HouseMozambique: Freedom in the World 2026 country report ↗Civil society · 2026 edition
- 02Digital Society ProjectDigital Society Project Dataset v8 ↗Independent measurement · 2000–2025 country-year data
- 03Open Observatory of Network InterferenceMozambique measurement dashboard ↗Independent measurement · Accessed July 17, 2026
- 04Access Now and the #KeepItOn coalitionInternet Shutdowns in 2025 Annual Report ↗Civil society · March 2026
- 05Committee to Protect Journalists2025 journalist prison census and case database ↗Civil society · January 21, 2026
- 06UN Trade and DevelopmentData protection and privacy legislation worldwide ↗International organization · Accessed July 17, 2026
- 07World Justice ProjectRule of Law Index 2025 ↗Independent measurement · October 28, 2025
- 08Reporters Without BordersMozambique: World Press Freedom Index 2026 profile ↗Civil society · May 2026