By Sanna Camara
Amid escalating attacks on free speech and the erosion of civic space, the Commonwealth is facing renewed and urgent calls to exert weight on its member states to act decisively in safeguarding the freedom of expression and media freedom, in line with its founding principles. It is further urged to take concrete and meaningful steps to implement [the Media Principles] within their domestic frameworks, as affirmed at its Heads of Government meeting held in Samoa, in October 2024.
At the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), leaders adopted the Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance (the Media Principles). Rooted in the Commonwealth Charter and grounded in international law, these principles reaffirm member states’ commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Crucially, they provide a practical and actionable framework for aligning domestic legal systems with international standards on the protection of freedom of expression and the safety of journalists, including ending impunity for attacks against them.
In its latest report released a week ago, a group of public-spirited individuals and organisations, spearheaded by the Commonwealth Journalists Association (CJA), decided to put together a set of principles which has the potential to “strengthen and align the Commonwealth’s commitment to free speech and media freedoms with the standards in international human rights law” and which also aimed to remind Member States of the obligations enshrined in Article 5 of the Commonwealth Charter. They strongly argue that adopting principles alone is not enough. Accordingly, they maintained that the Commonwealth’s credibility now depends on effective implementation of the adopted principles as a political bloc.
The report, titled, “Who Controls The Narrative? Legal Restrictions On Freedom Of Expression In The Commonwealth”, said it is imperative for member states to create a safe and enabling environment for the exercise of free expression – both online and offline – and the role of civil society in holding governments accountable.
“Commonwealth governments must take urgent actions to reform laws that unduly restrict expression, enact protections against violence and harassment, and strengthen oversight and judicial accountability mechanisms,” stated the report in its way Forward.
Articles 2, 7 and 8 of the Media Principles make this clear: laws that criminalise speech must be repealed or amended; State authorities must prevent, investigate and prosecute attacks on journalists; and effective redress mechanisms must be in place. The Media Principles recognise the importance of international cooperation – civil society, national human rights institutions, and regional and international bodies all have a role to play in supporting and monitoring these reforms.
“Accountability mechanisms too are key. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), mandated to address serious violations of Commonwealth values, can be revitalised to fulfill its role more proactively, including by responding to systemic constraints on civil society and the media,” the report observed, while highlighting, similarly, that the Commonwealth Secretariat be resourced and empowered to assist Member States in translating commitments into action, including through legal reform and institutional strengthening.
Crucially, the above principles were seen as an important and necessary step to “align the national laws of Commonwealth Members States that may be misused to restrict freedom of expression, and the implementation of such laws, with international standards and norms”.
That project resulted in The Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance (the ‘Media Principles’). The Media Principles were, after a process of review and discussion in a State-led process, adopted by Commonwealth Law Ministers in 2022 and officially adopted by Commonwealth Heads of State at their summit meeting in Samoa in October 2024.
Laws reforming but challenges remain
Fifteen Commonwealth States in Africa have so far repealed domestic laws criminalising defamation: Ghana (2001), Lesotho (2018), Sierra Leone (2020), Seychelles (2021), Tanzania (2023), South Africa (2024).
Additionally, courts in Kenya (2017), The Gambia (2018), and recently in Malawi (2025) have declared criminal defamation provisions to be unconstitutional. The report also welcomed the repeal or amendment of vague and overbroad criminal laws, such as those related to blasphemy and sedition in some states. New Zealand repealed blasphemy provisions in 2019, and sedition provisions were repealed in Sierra Leone and Uganda in 2020 and 2023 respectively. Although both Singapore and India repealed their sedition laws, in practice, similar provisions remain in operation.
Despite such “encouraging developments”, they remain significantly overshadowed by the lack of progress in repealing or amending the vast majority of abusive laws. In the Commonwealth, 41 countries continue to criminalise defamation….
Newer threats emerging
Today, newer threats are emerging which require higher levels of ingenuity on the part of legislators and policymakers, and stronger political will on the part of governments, to tackle. Two obvious examples are the dangers posed, respectively, by artificial intelligence and the ‘cancel culture’, both of which have the potential to stifle free speech through unjustified censorship and both of which have already begun to make their mark in the media sphere and in public discourse. It is no longer enough, therefore, for those who value freedom of expression to focus their attention on old-style censorship and other conventional methods of repression.
“… as multiple reports on the state of human rights have shown over the years, tolerance of free speech has suffered serious setbacks in many Commonwealth Member States, with unjustified attacks on journalists, unacceptable levels of impunity from both state and non-state actors, and the promulgation of illiberal laws (coupled with diminishing judicial protections) which render formal affirmations of good intent illusory,” Dr Venkat Iyer, a barrister and legal academic based in Northern Ireland who specialises in media law and ethics, wrote in the report’s Foreward.
Most countries also maintain laws with overly sweeping provisions related to national security, public order and public morality, which can be weaponised to arbitrarily and disproportionately restrict the exchange of information and ideas. The existence of these laws with their potential for severe sanctions creates a chilling effect on freedom of expression, which is reinforced by the multitude of instances of misuse against journalists, media workers, human rights defenders, activists, and political opponents, as is recorded in the report. Emblematic examples from across the Commonwealth include the use of sedition laws to suppress political opposition and public discourse…
Experts argue that the digital revolution and increasing ubiquity of social media have brought multiple new challenges as well as opportunities in terms of the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and access to information.
“In recent years, a wave of vague and overbroad digital laws – often justified in the name of cybersecurity, online safety, or combating disinformation, cybercrime, cyberterrorism and hate speech – has led to the imposition of excessive restrictions on online freedoms that are not aligned with international human rights standards,” said the report.
Other challenges that were found to restrict the free flow of expression and information in the Commonwealth include systemic interferences in the independence of the media through improper political influence, excessive concentration of media ownership, and lack of protection for sources. Right to information laws which should be a tool to empower public discourse through transparency, vary widely in scope and effectiveness across the Commonwealth, significantly hindering freedom of expression where access remains restricted or poorly enforced, said Karuna Nundy, Human Rights Lawyer, India, Member of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.
The Gambia situation
However, in The Gambia, remnants of criminal defamation still remain, despite decriminalising the law on defamation through a Supreme Court declaration in 2018, of Sections 178, 179, and 180 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court had deemed these sections unconstitutional.
The Ecowas Court of, Justice reinforced the Gambia’s Supreme Court decision by stating that Gambian laws criminalising sedition, defamation, and false news violate the right to freedom of expression. However, in practice, other laws such as the Information and Communication Act still contain provisions that could be used to stifle free speech.
Journalists and media outlets still face harassments and legal threats for publishing “defamatory” content. Government still exercises control over broadcasting and media outlets, particularly regarding political contents. Thanks to these factors, journalists practice self-censorship due to fear of government backlash.
Overall, the report, Who Controls The Narrative? Legal Restrictions On Freedom Of Expression In The Commonwealth, responds to the escalating misuse of criminal law provisions to restrict freedom of expression and media freedoms within the Commonwealth and around the world.
It is the result of collaborative efforts with experts and partners, and aligns with the global campaign to defend freedom of expression. It examines how criminal law provisions are misused in Commonwealth Member States to unduly restrict or suppress freedom of expression, often through punitive fines and imprisonment.
This is why the authors believe that “adoption alone is not enough. The Commonwealth’s credibility now depends on effective implementation.”
