By Alhagie M Dumbuya
Hate speech in The Gambia’s political history
The history of hate speech in The Gambia is deeply intertwined with the nation’s political evolution. During former President Yahya Jammeh’s 22-year authoritarian rule (1994–2016), state-controlled media were systematically utilized to delegitimize political opposition and civil society actors. Jammeh’s regime weaponized hate speech as a tool to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and foster divisions along ethnic and political lines. For instance, in June 2016, at a political rally in Tallinding, Jammeh infamously referred to the Mandinka ethnic group—the largest ethnic group in The Gambia—as “enemies, foreigners” and threatened to kill them one by one, vowing to place them “where even a fly cannot see them” (Human Rights Watch, 2016). This inflammatory rhetoric was not an isolated incident; Jammeh frequently used public platforms to brand political opponents as “traitors” and “enemies of the state,” often targeting specific ethnic groups to stoke fear and loyalty among his supporters.
The impact of this state-sponsored hate speech was profound. It contributed to an atmosphere of fear and repression, where opposition leaders were not only vilified but also faced imprisonment, torture, or forced exile. For example, the 2016 death of Solo Sandeng, an opposition activist who was arrested and killed in custody after leading a protest for electoral reform, underscores the “lethal consequences of Jammeh’s regime and its hate-driven propaganda” (Amnesty International, 2016). The regime’s rhetoric also deepened ethnic divisions, creating a legacy of mistrust and polarization that persists to this day.
Following the democratic transition in 2016, which saw the election of President Adama Barrow, there was widespread hope that political rhetoric would become more inclusive and respectful. However, the newfound political freedom has, in some cases, exacerbated hate speech, particularly on social media. The proliferation of digital platforms has provided a new arena for political actors and their supporters to spread misinformation, inflammatory language, and ethnic slurs, often without accountability. A 2021 report by the Paradigm Initiative confirmed that much of the hate speech in The Gambia, which is usually ethnic or political in nature, occurs on social media platforms like Meta (Facebook) and WhatsApp. The report highlighted how political supporters use these platforms to target opponents with derogatory language, false accusations, and incitements to violence, often under the cloak of anonymity.
A 2023 media monitoring report by Malagen further underscored the prevalence of hate speech on social media, noting that political supporters frequently use these platforms to disseminate inflammatory content. For instance, during the 2021 presidential election campaign, social media was rife with posts targeting specific ethnic groups and opposition figures. Supporters of the ruling National People’s Party (NPP) and the opposition United Democratic Party (UDP) engaged in online vitriol, with some posts inciting violence against perceived political or ethnic adversaries (International Republican Institute, 2021). This shift from state-sponsored hate speech to decentralized, mass-driven discourse presents new challenges for regulating harmful content and ensuring accountability.
Legal and Institutional Response to Hate Speech
Internationally, the legal and institutional response to hate speech has gained prominence due to its potential to undermine democratic processes and fuel social division. The African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance (ACDEG) underscores the responsibility of member states to prevent incitement to violence and discrimination, particularly during electoral processes, as a means of safeguarding democracy and human rights (African Union, 2007). The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Opinion and Expression has also highlighted the dangers of weaponizing speech to erode democratic governance, warning that unchecked hate speech can contribute to polarization, political instability, and even mass atrocities (UN Human Rights Council, 2017).
Empirical studies, such as those conducted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Global Network Against Hate Speech, have documented instances where inflammatory rhetoric has preceded violence, as seen in the Rwandan genocide and ethnic conflicts in the Balkans (USHMM, 2014; Global Network Against Hate Speech, 2020). These cases illustrate the urgent need for strong legal mechanisms to counteract the spread of hate speech, particularly in politically charged environments.
In The Gambia, however, the existing legal framework addressing hate speech remains inadequate, leaving gaps that can be exploited for political or sectarian purposes. The Criminal Code includes provisions criminalizing incitement to violence, yet there is no specific legislation that comprehensively defines and criminalizes hate speech within the electoral context. This limitation has led to inconsistent legal enforcement, especially during election cycles when inflammatory rhetoric is most prevalent. The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) possesses regulatory mechanisms to oversee campaign rhetoric, but enforcement has been inconsistent, largely due to political considerations and institutional weaknesses (International IDEA, 2021).
Similarly, the country’s media regulatory framework, particularly the Information and Communications Act, lacks explicit provisions on hate speech in digital spaces, thereby allowing unregulated online discourse to flourish (Gambia Information and Communications Act, 2009). This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the rise of social media as a primary avenue for political engagement, where misinformation and divisive rhetoric spread rapidly. A 2022 study by the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD) in West Africa highlighted the increasing use of digital platforms to propagate hate speech in the region, often exacerbating ethnic and political tensions (CDD, 2022).
Comparative legal models from other African nations provide valuable insights into potential solutions for The Gambia. In Kenya, the National Cohesion and Integration Act criminalizes hate speech and includes provisions allowing for the electoral disqualification of candidates found guilty of inflammatory rhetoric (Kenya National Cohesion and Integration Act, 2008). This legislation has played a role in mitigating ethnic and political tensions, particularly during Kenya’s highly contested elections. South Africa’s Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA) similarly enforces strict provisions against hate speech in political contexts, offering a legal framework that balances free speech with the need to prevent harmful rhetoric (South Africa PEPUDA, 2000). Both countries provide compelling examples of how targeted legislative reforms can serve as effective safeguards against the dangers of hate speech in fragile democracies.
For The Gambia, adopting a similar approach—through explicit legal definitions, stricter enforcement mechanisms, and institutional capacity-building—could significantly strengthen its democratic resilience. Moreover, integrating digital media regulations into existing legal frameworks would be crucial in addressing the evolving nature of hate speech in online spaces. Empirical evidence from countries that have implemented such measures suggests that proactive legal intervention, combined with public awareness campaigns and independent regulatory bodies, can effectively mitigate the spread of divisive rhetoric and enhance social cohesion (UNESCO, 2021).
The Role of Parliament in Addressing Electoral Hate Speech
The National Assembly has a crucial role to play in combating hate speech through legislative reforms, oversight of electoral institutions, and civic education. Implementing a multifaceted approach can help balance the protection of free expression with the need to prevent harmful rhetorics during elections. One of the most immediate steps the National Assembly can take is the introduction of a Hate Speech Prevention Bill that would clearly define hate speech, establish penalties for violators, and provide enforcement mechanisms. Alternatively, it can also include strong provisions in the Elections Bill that is currently being considered by the relevant committees. This legislation should mandate that political parties adhere to a code of conduct explicitly prohibiting hate speech during campaigns. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) emphasizes that clear legal frameworks are essential in countering hate speech during elections, making such a bill a necessary measure (IFES, 2020).
Beyond enacting legislation, the National Assembly can play a crucial role in advocating for and strengthening the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to effectively monitor and sanction candidates who engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Granting the IEC the authority to disqualify repeat offenders of hate speech regulations could serve as a powerful deterrent. However, concerns may arise that such powers to the IEC could be weaponized against opposition candidates, especially in contexts where electoral bodies, particularly in Africa, are perceived to be under government influence. While this concern is valid, it remains the responsibility of National Assembly to uphold the IEC’s independence, ensuring it has both the mandate and the institutional capacity to act impartially and resist external pressures.
The Council of Europe’s toolkit on combating hate speech during elections highlights the importance of equipping electoral management bodies with the authority to enforce such regulations effectively (Council of Europe, 2019). In addition, Parliament should collaborate with civil society organizations to promote civic education programs that counter hate speech narratives and encourage issue-based political discourse. The United Nations underscores the role of education in fostering inclusive societies and reducing the spread of hate speech, making civic education an essential tool for electoral integrity (United Nations, 2019).
In the digital era, social media regulation is another pressing concern. While freedom of expression must be protected, the government should work with tech companies such as Meta (Facebook), Twitter, and WhatsApp to establish monitoring mechanisms for hate speech. Many democracies have adopted proactive strategies; for example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) requires social media platforms to remove hate speech within 24 hours of reporting (German Ministry of Justice, 2017). The Gambia could follow suit by engaging in regional cooperation with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to develop digital governance frameworks that address online hate speech. By implementing these strategies, The National Assembly can play a significant role in safeguarding electoral integrity and fostering a democratic culture free from hate speech.
Conclusion
It is to be acknowledged that hate speech is a potent threat to electoral integrity anywhere, The Gambia being no exception. By distorting political competition, suppressing voter participation, and inciting violence, inflammatory rhetoric undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. While The Gambia has made significant strides in democratic consolidation, the rise of unregulated political discourse poses new challenges that must be addressed through legislative action and institutional reform.
The National Assembly must take a leading role in ensuring that electoral processes are protected from the corrosive effects of hate speech. Strengthening legal frameworks, enhancing institutional oversight, and fostering a culture of political tolerance will be essential in safeguarding The Gambia’s democracy. As the country prepares for future elections, the urgency of addressing hate speech cannot be overstated. The long-term stability of the nation depends on the integrity of its democratic processes, and that integrity begins with responsible political discourse.
Alhagie M Dumbuya is the director of Library and Research at the National Assembly of The Gambia. Email: dalhagie@yahoo.com WhatsApp: (+220) 2381419
