Dear Editor,
The proposal to introduce mandatory accreditation for journalists and content creators in The Gambia raises serious questions about the direction of our democracy especially at a time when the government continues to proudly say that no journalist has been jailed, that more media houses have been allowed to operate freely, and that citizens openly criticise the state.
With these in mind and the celebration of The Gambia’s rise in the annual Press Freedom Index, the idea that journalists must obtain approval before practicing their profession is not just contradictory but alarming and risks returning the country to “permission-based journalism”.
It is difficult to convince right-based advocates that accrediting journalists and content creators isn’t a control tactic. Accreditation or screening policies could be used to exclude journalists deemed critical of government because the state will have the right to decide who can hold it accountable. That possibility should worry every Gambian. Should this be in place, it will threaten the very democracy the Barrow-led administration pride itself with.
President Adama Barrow has in many instances highlighted the country’s improved media environment since the end of authoritarian rule. But progress is not measured only by what governments say, it is measured by the laws and policies they introduce.
It is not long for Gambians to forget those moments when journalists were harassed, detained, and silenced. Progress has since been made, I must admit but that should not be taken for granted and for no reason, should one think of pushing the country back to those dark days.
So the critical question is: What exactly does the Barrow government hope to gain from accrediting journalists and content creators?
If the intention is to promote professionalism, the media industry already has institutions capable of doing so. The Gambia Press Union has for years promoted ethical standards and professional accountability within the profession.
Professionalism should be strengthened through self-regulation and the Media Council of The Gambia is here, not state control.
If the aim is to address misinformation online, then targeting journalism is the wrong approach. The digital age has created new communication spaces, thus governments should invest in media literacy capacity building programmes, transparency, and accountability, not licensing regimes that determine who is allowed to speak.
Dr Ismaila Ceesay, the Information Minister, should reflect carefully on this moment. Before assuming office, he was widely known as a strong advocate of democracy and press freedom. History reminds us that ministers who once presided and defended restrictive media laws later lived with deep regret.
Today, these laws may appear administrative; tomorrow they can become instruments of censoring you and those lawmakers who might vote for it.
Without a shadow of doubt, a democratic government does not need to license journalism because democracy thrives when journalists are free to investigate corruption, challenge authority, and amplify the voices of citizens without seeking permission from those they are meant to hold accountable.
The government must therefore reconsider this proposal and engage the media community in genuine dialogue. The future of Gambian democracy depends not on regulating journalists, but on protecting their freedom to do their work.
Once again, the gains made in press freedom since 2017 should be protected, not slowly eroded through policies that echo the logic of the past.
Sang ‘Wisdom’ Mendy
Brufut
An assault on press freedom
Dear Editor,
It is with profound concern that I align myself with the former presidents of the Gambia Press Union in their unequivocal condemnation of the proposed accreditation guidelines and online content regulations. These proposals are not merely misguided; they are a draconian overreach that must be rescinded immediately. To dress them in the language of order and responsibility is to mask their true nature: an unjustifiable assault on a pillar of our democracy.
Let us be clear about the reality these regulations seek to distort. The Gambian media landscape is not a wilderness in need of taming. It is a well-regulated ecosystem, populated by professionals who perform their constitutional duties with a steadfast commitment to ethical standards. Has this media endangered the state? No. Has it threatened the fabric of our society? It has not. It has, however, fulfilled its mandate to inform, to scrutinise, and to hold power to account.
As the esteemed former GPU leaders have rightly pointed out, we possess a robust, independent self-regulatory mechanism. This is not a concession; it is the gold standard. It is precisely what international law, and the best practices of established democracies prescribe.
To supplant this homegrown, professional system with heavy-handed state controls is to admit a desire for compliance over criticism, and silence over substance. These guidelines are, therefore, totally unjustified. They represent a clear and present danger to the freedom, independence, and maturation of our media, and consequently, a direct threat to the health of our democracy.
This brings me to a more perplexing aspect of this affair: the role of the Minister of Information, Dr Ismaila Ceesay.
Dr Ceesay, a professor of political science, is not a man who can claim ignorance. He understands, perhaps better than most, that the architecture of a state is defined by its adherence to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights. I would urge him to restrain himself and step back from this precipice.
His proposals stand in total contravention of the very principles that underpin a democratic society. He must remember that a ministerial portfolio is a temporary trust, but the laws and policies enacted today cast long shadows. They will outlive his tenure while shaping or deforming the Gambian society for generations.
Furthermore, the minister’s current trajectory is marked by a troubling dissonance. Dr Ceesay has been a direct beneficiary of the very media freedom he now seems intent on circumscribing. As an independent university professor and an opposition leader, he sought and enjoyed the media’s coverage. He understood its value as a tool for discourse and democratic participation.
To turn around now, having crossed the floor to ally with the ruling party, and seek to harm the very institution that once amplified his voice, is nothing short of disingenuous. It is ethically incoherent and, frankly, unpatriotic. The media did not serve him because of his politics, but because of his right to be heard. He owes it the same courtesy.
Dr Ceesay, a word to the wise should be sufficient. Your allegiance, your ultimate fidelity, must lie not with any party or government, but with the Constitution of the Republic and the best interests of the Gambia. Love for the Barrow government must not be mistaken for love of country.
A true patriot does not sacrifice long-term democratic health for short-term political comfort. I urge you to stay on the path of democratic governance, uphold the rule of law, and abandon these harmful proposals before the consequences, for the media, for society, and for your own legacy, become indelible.
Madi Jobarteh
Kembujeh
