Dear Editor,
There comes a moment in every democracy when the public must confront a simple truth: a ministry that cannot fulfill its mandate becomes a liability to the nation. In The Gambia today, that moment has arrived for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services. The pattern is unmistakable. The contradictions are glaring. The institutional failure is now too deep to ignore.
For years, the national broadcaster, Gambia Radio and Television Services (GRTS), has been left technologically stagnant, financially starved, and strategically abandoned. Instead of being empowered as the country’s primary platform for public information, it has been reduced to a ceremonial institution, overshadowed by private media houses that now serve as the government’s preferred channels for communication, propaganda, and political messaging.
The question that Gambians are asking is not emotional. It is structural. It is constitutional. It is rooted in the basic logic of public administration: Why would a government with a national broadcaster spend its time, energy, and public resources empowering private media houses instead of its own institution?
Why would ministers, senior officials, and the information minister himself spend more time on West Coast Radio than on GRTS — the very institution they are mandated to strengthen? Why would the government outsource its own voice? Why must the state pay millions to private platforms for visibility when it already owns airtime, studios, transmitters, and a national signal? These are not rhetorical questions. They are governance questions. And they go to the heart of ministerial responsibility.
In 2024, the government awarded D40 million to selected private media houses for propaganda and public relations. It was a controversial policy that many warned would distort the media landscape, compromise editorial independence, and deepen political patronage. It was also a policy that excluded certain media houses, rewarded others, and created a hierarchy of influence based on proximity to power.
The results were predictable. The policy failed. It did not improve government communication. It did not strengthen public trust. It did not enhance transparency. And it did not empower GRTS. Even more telling, some of the very media houses that benefited from the 2024 contracts later turned against the government, proving that patronage buys silence only temporarily; it never buys loyalty.
Now, in 2026, unconfirmed reports suggest that the government intends to repeat the same failed policy, but this time at an even more alarming scale: D100 million. A failed idea is being expanded, not corrected. A broken policy is being inflated, not reformed. A ministerial failure is being rewarded with a bigger budget, not a deeper review. This is not governance. This is institutional negligence. The core mandate of the Ministry of Information is clear: to build, modernise, and empower the national broadcaster; to ensure transparent, ethical, and professional public communication; to protect the media ecosystem from political capture; and to uphold the public’s right to accurate, independent information.
When a minister abandons these responsibilities, the consequences are severe. The national broadcaster becomes irrelevant. Private media houses become political instruments. Public funds become tools of patronage. And the nation’s information ecosystem becomes distorted by financial incentives rather than public interest. This is precisely what critics argue has happened under the current policy direction.
The reliance on private media houses, especially West Coast Radio, for government messaging is not a communication strategy. It is an admission of failure. It signals that the ministry has lost confidence in its own broadcaster. It signals that the government prefers platforms it can influence financially rather than institutions it must strengthen structurally. It signals that the national broadcaster has been left behind while private entities become the de facto voice of the state.
In governance literature, this pattern is widely recognised. When a minister’s policies weaken institutions, drain public resources, distort the media environment, and fail to deliver measurable improvements, the minister’s position naturally comes under scrutiny. Calls for resignation in such circumstances are not personal attacks. They are reflections of democratic accountability.
The public is not asking for miracles. They are asking for competence. They are asking for stewardship. They are asking for a national broadcaster that works, a transparent communication strategy, and a ministry that understands its mandate. Instead, they are witnessing a cycle of trial‑and‑error governance, escalating waste, and a deepening dependence on private platforms for state communication. The D40 million of 2024 was already a scandal. A D100 million repeat in 2026 would be a national embarrassment.
The Gambia deserves accountable, effective governance. Its institutions and citizens require competent stewardship of resources—not repeated cycles of failed policy and patronage. It is time for the Ministry of Information to end this negligence and restore integrity to the national media landscape.
Alagi Yorro Jallow
USA
