Dear Editor,
The media regulations and guidelines proposed by Pura leave little ambiguity about their intent: to introduce mandatory registration of journalists through a formal register, and to extend similar controls to social media users and content providers under the SPUR framework.
This includes the creation of a state-managed register of individuals engaged in digital expression. Such measures represent a fundamental shift from a rights-based approach to one of state control.
The ministry must be forthright with the Gambian public. It is untenable to advance proposals that clearly establish registration regimes while simultaneously denying such intentions. This contradiction undermines public trust and signals a deliberate attempt to obscure the true scope and implications of the regulations.
Crucially, the 1997 Constitution does not grant the state the authority to license or register journalists or social media users. Freedom of expression and of the press are protected rights, not privileges subject to administrative approval.
Moreover, international human rights law, including standards developed under the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, is unequivocal: Mandatory registration of journalists or individuals engaging in expression is incompatible with these freedoms.
The ministry’s so-called “clarifications” therefore do not clarify, rather they mislead. Framing these regulations as necessary for the protection of children, persons with disabilities, or the promotion of ethical journalism is a tired and unconvincing justification.
The Gambia already has a robust body of laws addressing child protection and the rights of persons with disabilities, alongside established professional standards and self-regulatory mechanisms within the media sector. These frameworks can and should be strengthened, without resorting to coercive state control.
There is no evidence that the Gambian media landscape is in a state of disorder that warrants such sweeping and restrictive interventions. On the contrary, these proposals risk shrinking civic space, inducing self-censorship, and eroding the fragile democratic gains made since the end of authoritarian rule.
It is therefore imperative that Pura and the ministry withdraw these draconian, unnecessary, and dangerous proposals in their entirety. The attempt to reintroduce state control over media and public expression, two decades after the failed 2002 Media Commission Bill, is not only regressive but deeply alarming. If pursued, these measures would not strengthen democracy; they would entrench a system of legalised repression. Gambians must reject these proposals unequivocally. The defense of freedom of expression is the defense of democracy itself.
Madi Jobarteh
Kembujeh
Gambian people deserve more than periodic progress.
Development is a debt paid, not a political favor
Dear Editor,
Development in a sovereign republic is not a gift bestowed upon the people by a benevolent leader; it is a fundamental right. It is funded by the citizens’ own taxes and by international support secured in their name. When a new ferry arrives, or a village is finally connected to the national grid, the government is not doing the people a favour; it is fulfilling a long-standing obligation. To present these milestones as the personal trophies of a presidency is to misunderstand the social contract fundamentally.
The recent “development tour” undertaken by President Adama Barrow has, in practice, functioned as little more than a thinly veiled campaign circuit. As the tour concludes, the flurry of foundation-stone laying and ribbon-cutting ceremonies feels less like strategic national planning and more like calculated electoral branding. This sudden surge of activity, following years of relative stagnation in these very sectors, suggests a troubling reality: that progress in The Gambia is tied to the political calendar rather than a steady, institutional pulse.
Furthermore, the scale of these presidential tours represents a staggering waste of national time and resources. There is no administrative necessity for the head of state to personally commission every rural project. These tasks fall squarely within the remit of relevant ministers, government technocrats, or regional chairmen. Instead, these events are transformed into massive spectacles requiring endless motorcades and high-security details that cause significant disruptions to local life. By insisting on being the face of every minor project, the president prioritises political optics over the efficient use of the state’s limited resources.
When development is concentrated around politically sensitive periods, it erodes the very foundation of accountability. It teaches citizens to view essential services as episodic rewards tied to the physical presence of the president, rather than rights guaranteed by the state. A credible legacy is built through the quiet, consistent delivery of services over a full term, not through a loud, expensive surge of activity in the final hour.
The Gambian people deserve a system that works for them every day, reliably, consistently, and without condition. They deserve a presidency that focuses on high-level policy and national stability, delegating local ceremonies to regional authorities to save costs and maintain focus. Ultimately, development is not a campaign tool or a reason for a parade. It is a continuous responsibility of the state that should never be held hostage by a political timeline.
As we have highlighted previously, the administration has significantly intensified the commissioning of projects across the country in recent months. From grant-funded ferries to renewed rural electrification, the visibility of government activity has spiked. While these projects are necessary and long overdue, their specific timing continues to raise serious questions about the nature of governance in our country and whether the line between public service and political campaigning has been permanently blurred.
Amadou Jaiteh
PROGRESS
