Minister Ismaila Ceesay recently called on Ousainu Darboe to fire Lare Sise and Lamin Manneh, his policy advisers, alleging that they failed to prepare him adequately for an interview. I will not waste time entertaining the foolishness of demanding that a political leader fire his advisers simply because a minister disagrees with their performance. I am not in the habit of asking people to lose their jobs.
However, since the Honourable Minister has opened the floodgates by demanding that people be fired, I believe it is only fair that we apply the same standard of scrutiny to his own performance. As the saying goes, when you introduce evidence into the record, you open the door for the other side to examine it.
So, let us examine the record of Dr Ismaila Ceesay and the Ministry of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services under his leadership.
1. The attempt to introduce mandatory registration for journalists and content creators
The Ministry pursued proposals requiring journalists, online media practitioners and certain influential social media users to obtain state-administered registration or accreditation. The proposals triggered strong opposition from the Gambia Press Union (GPU), media organisations, civil society groups and academics, who warned that the framework could give the state excessive power over who gets to practise journalism and exercise freedom of expression. The GPU and other stakeholders formally rejected the proposals in April 2026.
Why should a minister entrusted with communicating government policy to the public be associated with a framework that has provoked such widespread opposition from the very people whose freedom and independence he ought to respect?
2. A public confrontation with the media fraternity
When journalists and media organisations boycotted a validation workshop over the proposed regulations, Minister Ceesay responded dismissively saying, “That’s their problem. That’s what I usually want, for them to boycott.”
The Gambia Press Union publicly criticised the remark as unprofessional and dangerous for press freedom. Rather than calming tensions and building consensus, the minister’s response deepened an already serious dispute with the media community.
Is that the kind of leadership and stakeholder engagement Gambians should expect from their Minister of Information?
3. Threats of reciprocal government action against media organisations
The minister subsequently warned that if the media boycotted government activities, the government could boycott the media in return, adding that media houses depended on government.
Such remarks raise serious questions about whether public institutions are being used to facilitate open communication or whether access to government information risks becoming a tool of pressure against critical media organisations.
A free press is not supposed to depend on whether a journalist or media house pleases the government. Public information belongs to the people, not to the minister.
4. The controversy surrounding the D40 million media contract
In 2024, a government media contract reportedly worth more than D40 million, involving seven selected media outlets, attracted public criticism and questions from lawmakers about the procurement process and the criteria used to select beneficiaries.
The minister defended the contract as a means of countering disinformation. However, a programme involving such a substantial amount of public money naturally demands transparency, clear selection criteria and demonstrable value for taxpayers.
What measurable results did the government obtain? Were the selection criteria sufficiently transparent? And how should the public assess the effectiveness of this expenditure
These are legitimate questions of accountability.
5. The summoning of media stakeholders over an allegedly misleading headline
In March 2025, Minister Ceesay summoned the editor of The Voice newspaper, the Gambia Press Union, the Media Council and the Newspaper Publishers Association over a headline concerning an Afrobarometer survey on public trust in institutions.
The Media Foundation for West Africa condemned the move, describing it as intimidation and an overreach that threatened media independence.
A government minister has every right to correct factual inaccuracies. But when the government summons media stakeholders over critical reporting, it must be prepared to answer questions about whether it is defending accuracy or discouraging scrutiny.
6. Questions about the minister’s public statements and factual accuracy
In April 2025, FactCheck Gambia rated as false the minister’s claim that no journalist had been imprisoned for reporting. Its fact-check cited cases of journalists detained in 2020, as well as other instances of journalists and commentators being arrested or detained.
The public deserves accurate information from the person responsible for communicating the government’s position. When a minister makes a categorical claim that does not withstand fact-checking, it is reasonable to question the reliability of his public communications.
7. The controversy over the ministry’s use of its official platform for NPP messaging
In February 2026, the Ministry faced criticism after publishing a statement from the National People’s Party on its official platform. Minister Ceesay defended the decision, arguing that the Ministry had a responsibility to protect the integrity of the presidency.
That explanation does not end the debate. The Ministry is a public institution, funded by taxpayers and expected to communicate government information impartially. It is therefore fair to ask where the line is drawn between communicating official government business and amplifying the messaging of a political party.
So, who should be held accountable?
Let us be clear, Lare Sise and Lamin Manneh are policy advisers to a political leader. Their performance can be assessed by the person they advise. Whether they adequately prepared their principal for a particular interview is a matter for that principal to determine.
But Dr Ismaila Ceesay is a public official entrusted with a national ministry. His decisions affect journalists, content creators, media institutions, public expenditure and the public’s right to information. His performance is therefore a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.
If the standard is that advisers should lose their jobs because a minister believes they failed to prepare their principal for an interview, then surely a minister should also be prepared to answer questions about controversies arising from his own decisions, policies and public statements.
I am not calling for anyone to be fired simply because I disagree with them. I am asking for consistency, accountability and the same standard to be applied to everyone.
Minister Ceesay has every right to criticise the UDP and its leadership. But he cannot demand accountability from others while expecting his own record to remain beyond scrutiny.
The evidence is in the public domain. The questions are legitimate. The record is there for everyone to examine.
I will leave it to the Gambian people to judge between Lare Sise, Lamin Manneh and Dr Ismaila Ceesay, and to decide who has given the public greater cause for concern.
Saikou Camara
Administrative Secretary for Media & Communications, UDP
By Saihou Camara,
UDP spokesperson
