11
By Muhammed Lamin Drammeh
Yesterday, March 17, the Gambia Press Union (GPU) published its position paper opposing the proposed National Press Accreditation Policy and the Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations, 2025. And to me, this is a defining moment for press freedom in The Gambia’s growing democracy. The Union warns that the policy measures would hand the government excessive power over who can practise journalism and what content may be produced, violating both The Gambia’s 1997 Constitution and international human rights obligations.
As a young media and Communications practitioner, I find it important to support the GPU’s stance because its vision aligns with global standards that promote independent media self-regulation rather than state licensing. Across the world, responsible journalism thrives and flourishes when the press regulates itself through professional codes and independent institutions and not through government approval, like what the GPU believed it captured in the proposed National Press Accreditation Policy and the Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations, 2025. As the umbrella body of Gambian journalists, the Union has a legitimate principal concern, which is that the proposed regulations would reduce journalism to a state-licensed activity.
Honestly, in subjecting journalists and online communicators to register annually under the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), the state would effectively determine who may legally publish or broadcast. Such a licensing system risks violating Principle 10(2) of the African Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (2019), which states that the right to practise journalism ‘shall not be subject to undue legal restrictions.’ Principle 6 further underscores the need to protect journalists from state interference in their work. Freedom of expression is a right. Controls of this nature breed self-censorship, eroding the watchdog role the media plays in every democracy.
Personally, I admire Dr. Ceesay’s proactive commitment to improving public communication in The Gambia and how he’s been working in that ministry to serve as a proper government minister for words.
Even though I support the GPU’s concerns as legitimate, it is also fair to acknowledge the expression by the Minister of Information, Dr. Ismaila Ceesay. He has publicly dismissed claims that the accreditation proposal seeks to control or censor journalists, emphasizing instead that it aims to promote accountability and professionalism within the media landscape. However, good intentions alone cannot offset the structural risks posed by any system that makes journalistic practice contingent upon state approval. As the GPU rightly argues in its position paper, true accountability must arise from independent regulation, not executive discretion.
Essentially, the GPU’s proposal for self-regulation through the Media Council of The Gambia (MCG) reflects best practices across Africa. Kenya’s Media Council of Kenya (MCK), for example, strikes a delicate balance between accountability and autonomy. Although established by law, it remains independent from government interference, accrediting journalists and enforcing ethics through a peer-based structure. In South Africa, the Press Council of South Africa similarly demonstrates that voluntary self-regulation can sustain professional standards while protecting editorial freedom. The government there does not license individual journalists or online commentators, allowing the press to serve citizens rather than the state.
The opposite approach, the state-controlled accreditation, has proved harmful elsewhere. Under Tanzania’s 2016 Media Services Act, journalists risk suspension for working without official accreditation, a policy widely condemned by press freedom watchdogs. Egypt’s 2018 cyber laws, which force online content creators with large audiences to register with regulators, have had a similar chilling effect on free speech. The concerns raised by the GPU that Gambia’s proposed registration system for Social Media Users with Significant Public Reach (SPUR) could follow this path are, therefore, legitimate and well-informed.
International law also backs the GPU’s argument. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees freedom of expression, allowing only narrowly defined restrictions. Therefore, granting a technical regulator like PURA the power to license journalists or online publishers blurs the line between telecom oversight and human rights governance, which is a serious institutional error.
Ultimately, supporting the GPU in this case is about more than protecting Gambian journalists; it is about defending the public’s right to know. A free press is the oxygen of democracy, particularly in a nation still recovering from years of authoritarian control. Restricting journalists and journalism through state licensing would betray the progress The Gambia has made since 2017. Instead, the government should strengthen independent institutions like the Media Council, invest in media literacy, and expand access-to-information mechanisms that promote both professionalism and freedom.
Comparative evidence from Kenya, South Africa, and beyond shows that ethical journalism can flourish without state interference. True accountability comes from transparent self-regulation, not control. The Gambia’s democratic promise depends on protecting this principle. The GPU’s position is therefore a patriotic stand for press freedom and responsible communication in a Gambia we all want and deserve!
The Author, Muhammed Lamin Drammeh (ML Drammeh), is a master’s Student in Journalism & Communication with a major in International Communications at the Communication University of China.
