by Dr. Ousman Gajigo
Having reviewed the proposed regulation of media, here is my assessment. The regulation reflects a disturbing pattern of the Adama Barrow government taking all the wrong lessons from the Yahya Jammeh regime. It is effectively an attempt to restrict press freedom and the general freedom of expression while paying lip service to principles such as standards, fairness, and combating misinformation. No one should fall for this. For those who have not followed the issue, here are the major problems with this misguided regulation:
- Registration of Journalists
The proposed regulation requires that journalists be registered with the authorities. Specifically, journalists working for licensed broadcasters or designated online content providers must register with PURA, submitting personal details, a national ID, proof of training, and a signed undertaking to comply with the codes set by authorities. Ominously, the government can suspend or cancel registration for “serious or repeated breaches” of the regulations. This is effectively a power to bar journalists from practicing, despite the regulation’s wording that it “shall not be construed as a licence to practice journalism.” After all, the regulation ensures that no unregistered journalist can work for any regulated media outlet. This creates a state-controlled gateway into the journalism profession – a practice no credible press freedom standard endorses.
- Registration of Social Media Users
Any “Social Media User with Significant Public Reach” (SPUR) who monetises content through sponsorships, advertisements, or partnerships must register before publishing. The threshold for audience size is left to the discretion of the Minister. SPURs can have their registration suspended for disseminating “harmful or prohibited content” or failing to comply with directives. This provision will affect bloggers, independent journalists, and citizen reporters who earn any commercial income from their work, subjecting them to the same regulatory controls as broadcasters. On the surface, this may seem a relatively minor burden – but context and history matter. This same government attempted to bring criminal charges against a journalist two years ago simply for publishing an article reporting that the President was considering a particular individual as a successor.
- Discretionary Ministerial Powers Prone to Abuse
The Minister retains licensing powers and can recommend the suspension or revocation of broadcasting licences for “persistent or serious breaches.” Since “serious breaches” are not precisely defined, these powers will inevitably be used against outlets critical of the government. The Minister of Information also has the power to designate which online platforms fall under the regulations, creating a potentially politically influenced regulatory net.
- Content Monitoring and Takedown
Broadcasters and online platforms are obligated to monitor their own content and must cooperate with government takedown directives. Internet Service Providers must implement blocking upon receiving “lawful directives.” While the regulation includes due-process language – such as written notices and reasonable compliance periods – the monitoring obligation effectively creates a chilling effect, as outlets may be scared into self-censorship to avoid running afoul of the government.
- News Reporting Standards
Operators must ensure news is “objective, balanced, and impartial” and must avoid content that “creates public panic.” While journalistic accuracy is obviously a legitimate goal, the requirement to verify content related to “national security” before broadcast, and the prohibition on content that “incites public insecurity,” are reminiscent of regulations under a military dictatorship such as Jammeh’s. This government, which retains many Jammeh-era holdovers, will use these provisions to suppress legitimate reporting on government misconduct, security crises, and public emergencies. Moreover, what expertise does this government or PURA possess to institute reporting standards beyond what the GPU already provides?
- Prohibition on “Unconfirmed Reporting”
Operators may not broadcast any report based on “rumour, supposition, or allegation” unless it is clearly flagged as such. This provision appears designed to hamper the emerging investigative journalism being done by outlets such as The Republic and Malagen. Much investigative reporting is necessarily built on information that is initially unverified. A strict requirement to verify before publishing could impede timely accountability reporting and shield the powerful from scrutiny.
- No Mention of GRTS
For a government supposedly concerned about “press standards,” “fairness,” and other high-minded principles, the proposed regulation makes no mention of GRTS or public broadcasters. As a public broadcaster, GRTS should be held to standards of transparency, independence, and impartiality – standards that are conspicuously absent from its current operations. The regulation’s silence on this is telling. How seriously, then, should anyone take this government’s professed concern for media standards?
CONCLUSION
The Gambia Press Union (GPU), the Gambia Online Media Association (GOMA), EFSCRJ, and other bodies are fully justified in opposing this ill-advised attempt at control. This is not merely an assault on press freedom – it is an attempt to weaken accountability and further derail the democratic transition this country so urgently needs. Should this regulation be implemented, we all have an obligation to fight it.
