The Gambia Press Union (GPU), the country’s leading professional body for journalists and media workers, has strongly condemned the draft National Press Accreditation Policy and the Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations, 2025, describing them as a dangerous step backward for media independence and freedom of expression.
In a detailed position paper adopted by its Executive Committee on March 6, 2026, the GPU argues that the proposals, despite their stated aims of promoting professionalism and order in a changing media landscape, would establish expansive state control through the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). This approach, the Union says, is incompatible with Section 207 of the 1997 Constitution, which guarantees the freedom and independence of the press, and with The Gambia’s obligations under regional and international human rights instruments.
The GPU acknowledges the government’s intent to bring structure to broadcasting and online content amid rapid technological changes. However, after careful review, the Union concludes that the framework’s risk is converting regulatory oversight into a tool for administrative control over who can practise journalism and what content can be published.
At the heart of the concerns is the proposed mandatory registration of journalists under Regulation 19 of the Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations. The rules require journalists working for broadcasters or designated online providers to register with PURA, with annual renewal required. Registration can be suspended or cancelled for non-compliance with the regulations or conditions imposed by the Authority. Although the text claims registration is “not a licence to practise journalism,” the GPU argues it functions as de facto licensing in practice, since unregistered journalists could be barred from employment in regulated media houses.
This directly contradicts Principle 6 of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa (2019), which states that journalists shall not be required to obtain licences from the State. The GPU emphasises that the State, as a political actor, should not control access to the profession of journalism, a vital democratic watchdog role.
The regulations also introduce a new category of “Social Media Users with Significant Public Reach” (SPURs). Individuals whose online content reaches a wide audience or is monetised must register with PURA, submit personal identification and operational details, and face suspension or cancellation for violations. Combined with Regulation 33, which empowers PURA to monitor content and issue directives for removal, modification, or correction, this creates, as the GPU calls it, a system of ongoing state supervision over digital expression.
Such measures, the Union warns, could foster self-censorship, particularly on sensitive topics such as corruption, governance, and human rights. Vague definitions of SPUR thresholds and broad content standards—such as those related to public morality, national cohesion, or prohibited material—risk arbitrary enforcement and undermine the principle that the same freedoms apply online as offline.
The draft National Press Accreditation Policy compounds these issues by linking accreditation to PURA registration. It extends requirements to freelancers, content creators, and SPURs, demanding extensive documentation including national ID, tax certificates, and proof of “good character.” Accreditation decisions would be influenced by compliance with content regulations, with appeals first going to PURA and then to the High Court. The policy’s incorporation of broad “prohibited content” schedules raises particular alarm, as provisions on secretly recorded material or graphic violence could hinder legitimate investigative journalism without clear public-interest defences.
The GPU highlights an institutional mismatch: PURA was established under the 2001 PURA Act to handle technical and economic regulation of utilities, including broadcasting infrastructure, not to adjudicate journalistic ethics, content standards, or professional accreditation. Extending its mandate into these areas is seen as ultra vires and contrary to best practice across Africa, where media councils rather than utilities regulators manage content and ethics.
In its conclusions, the GPU contrasts the proposed model with successful independent self-regulation. It points to the existing Media Council of The Gambia (MCG), which handles complaints, applies professional ethics codes, and promotes accountability through mediation rather than punitive sanctions. Regional examples, such as Kenya’s Media Council, demonstrate that statutory but independent bodies can uphold standards without executive interference.
The Union urges the Ministry of Information to revise the framework by: Removing journalist registration, SPUR licensing and content enforcement powers from PURA; Granting statutory recognition and support to the Media Council of The Gambia as the primary independent regulator for content and ethics; Ensuring accreditation is managed through an independent media body rather than government agencies; and Limiting state intervention in media practice to criminal matters adjudicated by courts.
The position paper stresses that true professionalism and accountability in The Gambian media will be achieved not through state licensing and administrative control, but through strengthened, industry-led self-regulation that upholds constitutional guarantees and international commitments.
As debates intensify—with recent comments from former GPU presidents and government officials defending the plans—the GPU’s intervention underscores growing tensions over the future of press freedom in the country. Stakeholders across the media sector are watching closely to see whether the drafts will be amended to align with democratic principles or risk reversing hard-won gains since the restoration of multiparty democracy.
The full position paper calls for constructive dialogue to build a regulatory environment that protects both public interest and fundamental freedoms in The Gambia’s evolving media landscape.
