A group of former leaders of the Gambia Press Union (GPU) has issued a strongly worded statement condemning draft policies that they say threaten to reimpose state control over the media, evoking memories of the repressive era under former dictator Yahya Jammeh.
In a collective open letter titled “We Refuse a Return to Permission-Based Journalism in The Gambia,” signed by prominent figures including Demba A. Jawo, Ndey Tapha Sosseh, Hon. Madi M K Ceesay, Sheriff Bojang Junior, and Muhammed S. Bah, the ex-presidents argue that proposed regulations represent a dangerous regression in press freedom.
The statement targets the draft National Press Accreditation Policy for The Gambia and the Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations, 2025. These measures, drafted by the Ministry of Information, would require journalists to undergo registration, accreditation, and evaluations involving executive discretion—potentially including security vetting.
Drawing from personal experience, the signatories recall the “darkest chapters” of media repression during Jammeh’s 22-year rule (1994–2017), which included harassment, intimidation, exile, imprisonment, and the 2004 murder of GPU president Deyda Hydara. Hydara, they note, explicitly warned that state determination of who qualifies as a journalist equates to the loss of press freedom.
“What problem exactly is the Ministry of Information seeking to solve?” the letter asks pointedly. The former leaders emphasize that The Gambia’s media landscape is already self-regulated through the Media Council of The Gambia (MCG), an independent body established by the GPU. The MCG handles complaints, mediates disputes, and upholds ethical standards, representing journalists, media owners, civil society, and the private sector.
Rather than creating parallel state-controlled mechanisms, the signatories urge strengthening the MCG to enhance accountability without government interference. They warn that new accreditation systems risk confusion, politicization, and erosion of public trust in the media.
The post-Jammeh era has seen The Gambia’s media become more open, diverse, and professional, they argue. The push for registration and administrative approval appears unjustified and historically ominous—measures once justified as “necessary” or “temporary” paved the way for control under the previous regime.
The statement frames press freedom as a public right, not merely a journalistic privilege. When journalists require state permission to work, “it is not the press that is silenced—it is the people.” They cite binding international obligations, including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which protect freedom of expression and access to information.
Domestically, the 1997 Constitution guarantees press freedom without granting the executive authority to license journalists. Regionally, ECOWAS commitments to transparency and democratic governance are incompatible with such controls.
The letter calls for unified resistance: the GPU, individual journalists, media owners, editors, civil society organizations (including TANGO), and youth/women’s groups must act proactively. Young journalists are reminded that current freedoms were won through sacrifice, including lives lost, and must be defended vigilantly.
The signatories also appeal to international partners—such as the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), Federation of African Journalists (FAJ), Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), Article 19, and others—to monitor developments and apply pressure if needed, as they did during the Jammeh years.
In closing, the former GPU presidents stand in solidarity with current journalists and all Gambians who value democracy. “A free press is the lifeblood of accountability,” they assert. “Any regression, however technical in appearance, must be confronted collectively and decisively.”
The statement comes amid broader concerns about media-related legislation in recent years, including criminal code updates and cybercrime proposals, both of which have been criticized for potentially stifling dissent. While no final adoption of the accreditation policy has been confirmed, the intervention underscores growing alarm that hard-won gains in press freedom could be quietly undermined.
