Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of any democratic society. It allows individuals, including public officials, to express their thoughts, question leadership, and contribute to public discourse.
However, this right is not absolute. Recent remarks by the Chairman of the Brikama Area Council have drawn widespread criticism, with many citizens and at least one activist calling on the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to take appropriate action, claiming that his statements amounted to incitement.
This situation highlights the delicate balance between accessible, protected speech and speech that endangers public order. Accessible speech includes the right to criticise, debate, protest peacefully, and advocate for political or social change.
It may even include unpopular or controversial opinions. Such speech, no matter how uncomfortable, must be defended in a democracy.
On the other hand, speech crosses the line when it incites violence, promotes hatred, or directly threatens public safety. If a statement encourages people to attack others, undermines peace and cohesion, or incites hostility based on tribe, religion, or politics, it is no longer protected under the umbrella of free expression. That becomes a matter for law enforcement.
Public officials, in particular, must exercise caution and responsibility in their public pronouncements. Their words carry weight and can influence others significantly. When they make inflammatory statements, the consequences can be serious, even if unintended.
The IGP and relevant institutions must act fairly but firmly when allegations of incitement arise. Investigations should be swift and impartial, ensuring accountability while protecting civil liberties.
At the same time, citizens and civil society must continue to be vigilant in defending democracy—not only against censorship but also against speech that endangers national unity.
Free speech is a right. Incitement is a threat. Our democracy must know the difference.
