GRTS Journalist Refutes SIS Questioning Claims, Calls Reports Misleading

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

A journalist with the Gambia Radio and Television Services (GRTS), attached to the Office of the Vice President, has strongly refuted reports circulating online alleging that he was arrested and questioned by national security authorities.

Omar P. Jallow dismissed the claims as “false, unfounded, and misleading,” insisting that he has not been invited or interrogated by the State Intelligence Services (SIS), nor has his service passport been confiscated.

“I have not been invited or questioned by SIS in relation to these allegations. Additionally, my service passport has not been seized, nor was I denied any official travel,” Jallow stated in a message posted on his Facebook page.

The reports, widely shared by some online activists and commentators, also attempted to link Jallow to a purported controversy surrounding a recent community fundraising event in Sare Gainako. According to those claims, the situation was allegedly tied to dissatisfaction from senior political figure Seedy Njie over the invitation of Kanifing Municipal Council Mayor Talib Bensouda.

However, Jallow rejected the assertions, describing them as speculative and without basis. He clarified that he did not personally invite Mayor Bensouda, emphasizing that the invitation was extended collectively by members of the community.

“The event was a community-driven initiative, reflecting the collective decision and participation of the village,” he explained, urging the public to disregard what he termed misinformation.

The development comes amid growing concerns over the spread of unverified information in the country’s media space. Observers note that the incident underscores the increasing need for responsible journalism, professional ethics, and regulatory frameworks to safeguard the credibility of the media landscape in The Gambia.

On David Kujabi’s Commentary: Why Dr.Ismaila Ceesay is not Yahya Jammeh

 

By Alagi Yorro Jallow

Selective outrage and inherited grievances undermine public debate in The Gambia, resulting in tribalized criticism and silencing dissent until it becomes convenient. We must commit to principled and honest intellectual discourse.

Selective outrage and borrowed enemies undermine honest debate. Some who were silent under dictatorship now speak out in democracy. Criticism should be principled, not tribal or inherited. A democracy cannot survive on selective courage. Too often in The Gambia, attacks are based on popularity rather than principle. People chase applause by holding grudges rather than developing independent convictions. This is conformity disguised as courage. I've challenged Dr. Ismaila Ceesay’s policies and decisions. That is legitimate, democratic, and necessary. But my criticism is never personal or inherited; it is always about ideas, not vendettas or tribe.

Our national discourse is suffering from a crisis of selective outrage, borrowed enmity, and intellectual dishonesty. Too many people attack individuals not because of principle, but because it is fashionable. Too many inherit other people’s enemies rather than form their own convictions. Too many speak loudly only when the target is safe, and remain silent when courage is costly. This is not the civic culture The Gambia needs. This is not the intellectual maturity our democracy requires.

There is a truth that must be said with dignity: Anyone who refused to criticize Yahya Jammeh’s 22‑year dictatorship has no moral authority to lecture anyone today. For two decades, Gambians were detained, exiled, tortured, disappeared, and silenced. Journalists were hunted. Students were shot. Families were torn apart. Entire communities lived in fear. During those years, many of the loudest voices today were silent. Not a word. Not a whisper. Not a sentence of solidarity. Some refused to criticize Jammeh because he was from their tribe. Some refused because silence was safer. Some refused because neutrality was more comfortable than truth. Yet today, these same voices find extraordinary energy to condemn a civilian minister in a democratic government. This is not courage. It is convenient. It is selective outrage masquerading as principle.

Fatoumatta: I have challenged Dr. Ismaila Ceesay in government on his arguments, decisions, and positions. That is necessary and democratic. But Dr. Ceesay is not Yahya Jammeh; he did not run a dictatorship, torture Gambians, or preside over a reign of terror. To equate his role in government with the brutality of a 22‑year autocracy is not analysis. It is an exaggeration. It is historical amnesia. It is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that weakens public debate.

What Dr. Ceesay taught as a political science lecturer is not identical to the constraints of governing. Theory and governance are not the same terrain. One is a classroom; the other is a battlefield of competing interests, institutional limitations, and political realities. Critique him, yes. Hold him accountable, yes. But do so with fairness, context, and intellectual honesty.

David Kujabi’s recent commentary on Dr. Ceesay is notable for its literary style, which is eloquent, poetic, and sharply written. But eloquence is not evidence. Poetry is not proof. And metaphor is not analysis. However, rhetorical skill is not a substitute for a substantiated argument. It is relevant to observe, factually and dispassionately, that Mr. Kujabi worked in the Gambia Police Force during a period when state institutions, including the police, were implicated in repression. This is included solely as historical background.

During those years, many Gambians suffered under state power. Yet we did not hear Mr. Kujabi’s voice in the national struggle against dictatorship. Silence is a choice, and he had the right to make that choice. But silence during tyranny and loudness during democracy is a contradiction worth examining, especially when that loudness is directed at individuals who never presided over repression.

To criticize Dr. Ceesay today while never having criticized Jammeh yesterday is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of selective courage. And selective courage is the enemy of intellectual honesty.

 One of the most corrosive habits in our political culture is the tendency to inherit other people’s enemies. Some individuals attack public figures not because they disagree with their ideas, but because they have adopted someone else’s grudges. Others criticize leaders from different communities while protecting those from their own. This is not justice. This is not activism. This is tribalized criticism, and it is dangerous. A democracy cannot grow on borrowed hostility. A nation cannot mature on inherited grudges. A public debate cannot thrive on selective outrage. The Gambia deserves a higher standard of debate. We must cultivate a political culture where criticism is principled, not tribal; disagreement is intellectual, not personal; accountability is consistent, not selective; and truth is universal, not seasonal.

I will continue to critique policies, ideas, and governance failures. I will continue to defend truth, justice, and accountability. But I will not participate in the politics of personal destruction. The Gambia deserves better. Our democracy deserves better. Our public discourse deserves better.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay Is More Trustworthy Than David Kujabi A Man Who Helped Dictatorship

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator

The recent commentary by David Kujabi, attempting to question the integrity of Dr. Ismaila Ceesay, is not only unconvincing—it is profoundly undermined by his own record in office.

I write not from speculation, but from lived experience.

As a local contact for Amnesty International, I can vividly recall numerous instances in which we reached out to David Kujabi in his capacity as Police PRO, seeking urgent clarification on the whereabouts and conditions of individuals held in police custody. These were not casual inquiries—they were matters of human rights, often involving detainees held without due process under the regime of Yahya Jammeh.

Yet, time and again, those calls went unanswered.

On several occasions, they were outright rejected.

This was not mere administrative delay—it was a pattern of deliberate silence at moments when transparency and accountability were most needed.

Even more troubling are the memories surrounding the case of Alagie Abdoulie Ceesay, a respected radio journalist who, along with his brother, was detained and reportedly held incommunicado under conditions that raised serious fears of torture. During this period, families, journalists, and human rights actors sought answers. The public needed reassurance. The international community demanded clarity.

But again, silence prevailed.

Ceesay was eventually released, but tragically passed away only months later—an outcome that continues to cast a long shadow over that episode and raises serious moral questions about the treatment he endured in custody.

These are not distant or abstract issues. They are part of a documented period in our national history when fear overshadowed freedom, and when those entrusted with public communication often chose silence over truth.

It is against this backdrop that Kujabi’s current attempt to lecture the nation on “principle” and “political truth” must be assessed.

Today, he speaks loudly, casting doubt on the credibility of a sitting minister who operates in an environment where criticism is not suppressed but openly expressed. Yet, when he himself occupied a position of authority—one that demanded courage, clarity, and accountability—his voice was conspicuously absent.

This is the contradiction that cannot be ignored.

Dr. Ismaila Ceesay represents a different trajectory—one of engagement, reform, and institutional openness. His transition from critic to policymaker reflects growth and responsibility, not betrayal. In contrast, Kujabi’s trajectory reflects a troubling shift from silence in times of repression to selective outrage in times of freedom.

The Gambian people deserve honest discourse, grounded in facts and consistent principles—not revisionist narratives shaped by convenience.

Before David Kujabi positions himself as a moral authority, he must first reckon with a simple and unavoidable question:

Where was his voice when citizens were detained, when journalists were silenced, and when families were desperately seeking answers?

Until that question is answered, his criticisms will continue to ring hollow—drowned out by the echoes of a silence that history will not forget.

A Necessary Reality Check: Why the IFJ Must Recalibrate Its View of The Gambia

The reflections of Alagi Yorro Jallow arrive at a critical moment—one that demands intellectual honesty, institutional humility, and, above all, a recalibration of perspective by international partners such as the International Federation of Journalists.

There is no denying the historical role the IFJ and similar bodies played during the dark years of repression under Yahya Jammeh. Their vigilance, advocacy, and solidarity were not only necessary—they were lifesaving. But history, however painful, must not become a permanent lens through which present realities are distorted.

The Gambia of 2026 is not a continuation of 2004. It is a transformed, evolving democracy grappling not with state-sponsored repression of the press, but with a far more complex and modern dilemma: the erosion of professional journalism standards in the digital age.

To ignore this shift is not merely an oversight—it is a disservice.

The IFJ’s recent posture, as rightly highlighted by Jallow, appears to conflate two fundamentally different concepts: state control and professional regulation. In doing so, it risks reducing a nuanced national conversation into a simplistic narrative of repression. This is not only inaccurate, but it undermines the very professionalism and fair play the IFJ claims to uphold.

Journalism, by its very nature, is not an unregulated free-for-all. Across credible democracies, it is guided by ethical codes, professional standards, and systems of accreditation—not imposed by governments, but shaped and enforced by the profession itself. That is the benchmark of serious journalism.

Yet in The Gambia today, the landscape tells a different story. The democratization of media—while empowering—has also opened the floodgates to a troubling phenomenon: the collapse of distinction between trained journalists and unverified voices. Activists, influencers, and opportunists now operate under the banner of journalism, often without adherence to ethics, accountability, or factual rigor.

This is the decadence that must be confronted.

Freedom of expression must never be mistaken for freedom from responsibility. A society where “everyone with internet access” can publish, broadcast, and declare “breaking news” without verification is not the pinnacle of democracy—it is a breeding ground for misinformation, reputational harm, and public distrust.

If the IFJ is truly committed to the principles of professionalism, ethical journalism, and fairness, then it must engage with this reality. It must acknowledge that the greatest threat to Gambian journalism today is not state suppression, but the internal dilution of standards.

And this is where the IFJ must do better.

Before issuing sweeping condemnations, international bodies have a duty to be adequately informed, contextually grounded, and intellectually rigorous. Reaction without reflection risks not only misrepresentation but also the alienation of the very institutions they seek to support.

The Gambia does not need outdated advocacy rooted in a past it has worked hard to overcome. It needs informed partnership—one that recognizes progress while constructively engaging with present challenges.

Jallow’s argument is not a rejection of international solidarity. It is a call for its evolution.

A credible IFJ response would not reflexively oppose regulation, but would instead champion a balanced framework: defending press freedom while supporting profession-led accreditation, ethical enforcement, and institutional strengthening. That is the model that sustains journalism in mature democracies—and it is the model The Gambia deserves to pursue.

The message is clear: solidarity must not be static. It must grow, adapt, and respond to reality.

The Gambia has moved forward. Its partners must do the same.

Anything less is not support—it is stagnation disguised as advocacy.

Truthfulness, Responsibility, and the Danger of Politicising Religion: A Response to UDP Sheikh Omar Jaiteh

By Yaya Dampha, NPP Diaspora Coordinator – Sweden

The recent remarks by  UDP’S Omar Jaiteh on Ker Fatou have raised serious concerns—not only politically, but morally and religiously. What we witnessed was not measured scholarship, but reckless political commentary disguised as religious authority.

Islam places the highest premium on truthfulness. It commands believers to ensure that their words align with reality and strictly forbids falsehood under any circumstance. Truthfulness is the path to righteousness and social harmony, while lies and distortions lead to destruction, division, and moral decay. This obligation is even greater for those who present themselves as scholars or students of knowledge, because their words carry influence and can shape public perception.

It is therefore deeply troubling that a man claiming religious authority would make such grave and unverified allegations in a public forum. Labeling president Adama Barrow  a “kafir” and comparing his leadership to that of Pharaoh is not only false—it is dangerously irresponsible. Such claims have no basis in reality and directly contradict the ethical standards Islam demands in speech.

If The Gambia were truly being governed in the oppressive manner as claimed by Sheikh Jaiteh he would not have the freedom to sit openly on a media platform and attack the president without consequence. The very environment that allows him to speak so freely is proof that his comparison is baseless, misleading and  not truthful even in the eyes of  Allah.  Fear Allah! Omar Jaiteh 

The lying UDP Sheikh more alarming exposes his political ignorance and untruthfulness in his claim that the 2021 presidential elections were rigged. This assertion is entirely unfounded. Those elections were observed by numerous international and domestic bodies, including civil society groups and the media, all of whom affirmed their credibility and transparency. To now question their integrity without a shred of evidence is not analysis—it is the repetition of political talking points without understanding or responsibility. I doubt if Omar Jaiteh have ever witness electoral processes in the Gambia.

But perhaps the most revealing aspect of Sheikh Jaiteh’s conduct is his selective courage.

During the era of —a time marked by fear, repression, and serious human rights abuses—he was conspicuously silent. When Gambians were being imprisoned, exiled, and silenced, he did not display this same boldness. He did not issue such condemnations. He did not challenge authority. Then this coward like many other place time heroes were hiding under the bed.

Today, in a democratic environment where freedom of speech is guaranteed, he suddenly emerges—loud, confrontational, and self-appointed—seeking relevance as a peace-time critic. That is not courage. That is opportunism. It is easy to speak when there is no risk; it is far more telling when one remains silent in the face of real injustice.

Islamic teachings are clear on such matters. Numerous established legal opinions emphasize that publicly attacking leaders in a manner that incites division contradicts the principles of the early Muslim scholars. The proper approach is sincere and private advice—not public condemnation that fuels discord.

Scholars have consistently warned that:

• Public criticism of leaders through media platforms often brings harm rather than benefit and should be avoided.
• Slandering leaders is considered a serious moral failing that breeds hatred and societal division.
• While it is permissible to speak against clear wrongdoing, such criticism must remain within ethical and legal boundaries and must not descend into personal attacks or incitement.

What Sheikh Jaiteh has done falls far outside these boundaries. His emotionally charged and unverified statements risk misleading the public, inciting unnecessary tensions, and dragging religion into partisan politics.

The government under President Barrow and the continues to focus on development, stability, and democratic consolidation. Like any government, it is open to criticism—but that criticism must be responsible, factual, and constructive.

The Gambian people must reject attempts to weaponize religion for political gain. Religious authority is not a license for misinformation, nor should it be used as a shield for political ambition.

If Sheikh Jaiteh wishes to engage in politics, he should do so openly and honestly—not by distorting religious teachings to mislead the public.

Gambia deserves better—voices grounded in truth, consistency, and integrity. Not those who were silent in times of fear, only to reappear in times of peace as loud but unreliable arbiters of morality.

---

Claims by Domestic Media Outlets on Online Content Regulations Are Misleading, Minister Says

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Banjul, April 2026 — The following statement was issued by the Minister of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services, , addressing growing public debate surrounding The Gambia’s proposed Broadcasting and Online Content Regulations, 2026. In recent weeks, discourse across social media platforms has intensified, with much of the commentary driven by misconceptions, speculation, and, in some instances, misinformation.

While scrutiny of public policy remains a cornerstone of democratic engagement, experts emphasize that such discourse must be grounded in factual understanding. The Ministry of Information, Media and Broadcasting Services has moved to clarify several key areas where public interpretation appears to diverge from the actual provisions of the draft regulation.

Freedom of Expression Not Under Threat

Contrary to claims that the regulation seeks to silence free speech, the draft explicitly affirms the protection of constitutional rights, including freedom of expression, media freedom, editorial independence, and privacy. It further stipulates that any regulatory measures must be reasonable, proportionate, and must not constitute prior censorship.

Importantly, the regulation does not require pre-publication approval of content. Instead, it introduces post-publication accountability mechanisms, aligning with practices in many democratic jurisdictions. The aim, according to officials, is to ensure that freedom of expression is exercised responsibly, without enabling harm such as incitement to violence or the spread of hate speech.

Editorial Independence Maintained

Concerns that the government will interfere in editorial decision-making have also been dismissed as unfounded. The draft regulation explicitly guarantees editorial independence, including within public service broadcasting. It prohibits undue interference in content decisions and separates infrastructure provision from editorial control.

Regulatory authorities, officials say, are tasked with oversight rather than control—ensuring compliance with professional standards without dictating viewpoints.

No Licensing Requirement for Ordinary Social Media Users

Another widely circulated claim suggests that all social media users will be subject to licensing. However, the regulation targets only a specific category known as Social Media Users with Significant Public Reach (SPURs)—individuals with large audiences who monetize their content and exert measurable public influence.

For this category, the regulation outlines basic obligations such as transparency in sponsored content, avoidance of misinformation, and adherence to standards against harassment and impersonation. Ordinary users expressing personal opinions are not subject to these provisions.

Journalists Not Required to Register to Practice

The issue of journalist registration has also generated concern. The regulation clarifies that individuals are not required to register in order to practice journalism independently. Registration requirements apply only within licensed broadcasting entities or designated platforms, primarily for administrative and compliance purposes.

The draft explicitly upholds the constitutional right of individuals to engage in journalism outside formal institutional frameworks.

Due Process Safeguards in Enforcement

Fears of arbitrary shutdowns of content or punitive actions are addressed within the regulation through clearly defined due process mechanisms. These include written notices prior to enforcement actions, reasonable compliance periods, opportunities to respond, and rights to appeal decisions.

Additionally, an independent Content Complaints Committee is to handle grievances, reinforcing transparency and accountability within the system.

Promoting Fairness in Political Coverage

The regulation also introduces provisions aimed at strengthening democratic processes, particularly during elections. It mandates balanced and equitable media coverage of political actors, clear distinctions between news and political advertising, and safeguards against bias.

Observers note that these measures are intended to enhance pluralism rather than restrict political expression.

Encouraging Innovation with Accountability

Contrary to concerns that the regulation may stifle digital innovation, officials maintain that it provides a structured framework for growth within the evolving media landscape. The rules apply only to designated platforms following formal legal procedures and aim to promote consumer protection, responsible innovation, and media diversity.

A Framework for Modern Media Governance

At its core, the proposed regulation seeks to achieve several objectives: protecting citizens from harmful content, promoting professional standards in journalism, ensuring fairness in political coverage, introducing accountability for monetized digital influence, and supporting the development of local and accessible media content.

Conclusion

As public engagement continues, stakeholders are urged to base their contributions on verified information. The Ministry maintains that the draft regulation represents an effort to modernize media governance in line with global standards, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms.

Quoting English writer , officials caution that politicizing regulation risks undermining truth and public interest.

“The real threat to freedom is not regulation,” the statement concluded, “but misinformation.”

— End —