At an emergency meeting convened at the GPU Secretariat Wednesday, for mediastakeholders to discuss and build a common position against the proposed regulation, the GPU president Isatou Keita presented the following concerns on the matter:
The National Press Accreditation Policy
· The proposed National Press Accreditation Policy establishes a centralized system under which journalists, freelancers, content creators, and even Social Media Users with Significant Public Reach (SPURs) must obtain state-administered accreditation in order to access government events and perform core journalistic functions.
· This broad scope transforms accreditation from a logistical access mechanism into a comprehensive gatekeeping system that determines who may participate in public information gathering, which is a core component of press freedom.
· It also creates a layered regulatory structure in which journalists must first obtain approval from the government regulator, PURA, and then seek accreditation from the same government regulator.
· In our view, the institutional design of the accreditation system also raises serious independence concerns, giving PURA and the Minister the authority to decide who is approved or not to practice as a journalist.
· The policy also places a significant burden on journalists and diminish their ability to critically report on governance and effectively scrutinize state institutions – over concerns on whether or not they would be granted a licence to practice or whether such licence would be revoked or renewed.
· The policy extends PURA’s mandate on broadcast licencing and spectrum management into the regulation of individual journalists, online speakers, accreditation systems, and digital expression.
· Neither the Information Communication Act, 2009, nor the Constitution authorises the State to control who may practice journalism or speak online through registration, certification, or accreditation schemes administered by the executive, through Ministerial regulation to be implemented by PURA.
Broadcasting and online content regulations, 2026 (New Version)
· The Definition of “Designated Online Content Provider” allows the Minister to designate “any online service, platform, or person” as subject to regulation. This means an individual blogger or journalist could be designated as a “provider” without their consent or knowledge. This is a massive expansion of scope that could capture any Gambian with an online presence. We found this to be unconstitutional and overbroad.
· The Objectives of the Regulations includes “constitutional safeguards (freedom of expression, media freedom, editorial independence, and prohibition of prior censorship)”, however, these objectives are not consistently reflected in the operative provisions of the Regulations, particularly those granting
PURA content removal and sanction powers.
· The Minister may designate online platforms or services as subject to regulation. However, there is no provision for judicial review or independent appeal of a designation decision itself. A platform or individual designated as a regulated entity has no recourse to challenge that designation.
· The new version also stated that “registration is not required (for one) to practise (journalism)”, however, the provision remains problematic as registration is still required for journalists employed by regulated media houses, creating de facto pressure. Crucially, neither the PURA Act 2001or the ICA, 2009 contains any provision authorising the registration of individual journalists. We found this to be an ultra vires action (i.e. PURA & the Ministry are acting beyond their powers). Registration of journalists is a matter for independent professional regulation through an independent entity like the Media Council of The Gambia (MCG), not through a government utilities regulator.
· It also empowers PURA to suspend or cancel a journalist’s registration for “serious or repeated breaches of these Regulations or the Code of Practice.” This grants a government regulator disciplinary authority over journalists, bypassing independent peer-based mechanisms. We believe that professional discipline of journalists should be vested exclusively in an independent regulator like the MCG, applying the Cherno Jallow Charter of Ethics for Journalists and Media Operators.
· The Regulation for the registration of journalists by PURA directly contradicting Principle 14 (3) of the African Commission’s Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (2019), which states: ” States shall establish an independent regulatory body to issue broadcasting licenses and to oversee the observance of license conditions.”
· These are just some of the observations that we have, among many others that are inconsistent with the constitutional, regional and international guarantees of press freedom, freedom of expression, and access to information.
