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 —

MINISTER JOOF TO CHAMPION GAMBIA’S SECURITY LEADERSHIP AT PRESTIGIOUS PARIS SUMMIT

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

Banjul, 13 April 2026 — The Honourable Minister of Defence, Baboucarr Ousmaila Joof, is set to project The Gambia’s growing influence on the global stage as he addresses the inaugural plenary meeting of the G7++ Friends of the Gulf of Guinea in Paris, France.

Accompanied by the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Madam Rohie Bittaye Darboe, Minister Joof’s participation signals yet another strong endorsement of the government’s proactive and forward-looking security diplomacy under President Adama Barrow’s leadership.

The high-level meeting, scheduled for 15 to 16 April 2026, is convened under the auspices of the powerful Group of Seven (G7), with France hosting in its distinguished role as the 2026 G7 President. The gathering brings together some of the world’s most influential nations alongside Gulf of Guinea states in a united front to safeguard one of Africa’s most strategic maritime corridors.

The G7++ Friends of the Gulf of Guinea initiative stands as a vital international platform—fostering cooperation between global powers, regional actors, and strategic partners—to decisively confront maritime insecurity, piracy, and transnational organized crime. The inclusion and active participation of The Gambia in this elite forum underscores the country’s rising credibility and trust among international partners.

Backed by key institutions such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the European Union, the Paris plenary is expected to deliver bold, coordinated strategies to secure the Gulf of Guinea—an economic lifeline critical to regional prosperity and global trade.

Minister Joof’s address is anticipated to spotlight The Gambia’s tangible contributions to regional peace and security, while reinforcing the nation’s unwavering commitment to collaboration, intelligence sharing, and capacity building. His presence not only amplifies The Gambia’s voice but also affirms its position as a responsible and dependable partner in safeguarding maritime stability.

As global attention turns to Paris, The Gambia once again demonstrates that, despite its size, it remains a formidable and respected player in shaping solutions to some of the world’s most pressing security challenges.

Editorial: DEFENDING REFORM, NOT BOYCOTT: WHY DR. ISMAILA CEESAY IS RIGHT ON MEDIA REGULATION

Editorial – JarranewsTV

The outrage expressed by against is not only exaggerated—it is fundamentally misplaced, legally weak, and inconsistent with how democratic governance and policy development function.

Let us deal with facts, not emotions.

A validation workshop is not a decree—it is a consultative platform. The Ministry of Information did exactly what is expected in a democracy: invite stakeholders, including the , to review and refine a proposed Media Regulatory Act. That is participation, not exclusion. If some stakeholders chose to boycott, that is their decision—but it cannot be twisted into evidence of “exclusion” or “dictatorship.”

A boycott is not engagement. It is abdication.

If media leaders had genuine concerns, the mature and professional course of action was clear: attend the forum, table objections, submit written position papers, and propose amendments to protect press freedom. Instead, a silent boycott was organized. That is not advocacy—it is avoidance.

The so-called “hot mic” comment attributed to Dr. Ceesay has also been deliberately weaponized. Saying “that’s fine if they boycott” is not evidence of hostility; it reflects a simple reality: government cannot compel participation in consultations. Stakeholders have both agency and responsibility. Refusing to engage and then alleging exclusion is a contradiction that weakens the credibility of such claims.

The assertion that the Minister is sidelining stakeholders collapses under scrutiny. The very existence of a validation process disproves that narrative. One cannot invite stakeholders to shape a law and simultaneously be accused of excluding them—unless the criticism is driven more by politics than by facts.

More importantly, the debate around media regulation in The Gambia must be grounded in reality—not romanticism.

Across democratic societies, media regulation is standard practice. Accreditation, ethical standards, and accountability mechanisms are not tools of repression—they are safeguards. In today’s digital environment, where bloggers, social media personalities, and self-proclaimed “citizen journalists” can publish unverified claims to wide audiences within seconds, the risks are evident: defamation, invasion of privacy, misinformation, and one-sided reporting.

A regulatory framework is not an attack on press freedom—it is a protection of public interest, truth, and professional integrity.

Equally concerning is the growing politicization of the media space. When newsrooms and activist platforms abandon objectivity and adopt entrenched political positions, they cease to function as watchdogs and instead become participants in the political arena. That is precisely why a well-structured regulatory framework—developed through consultation—is necessary.

The personal attack on Dr. Ismaila Ceesay as an “enemy of progress” is reckless and unproductive. Disagreement over policy does not justify character attacks. In any functioning democracy, public officials must be judged by their processes and outcomes—not by selectively interpreted audio clips or emotionally charged rhetoric.

The truth is straightforward: Dr. Ismaila Ceesay opened the door for dialogue. Some stakeholders chose not to walk through it.

You cannot boycott the table and then complain about the outcome.

If there is any real threat to media development in The Gambia today, it is not consultation—it is the refusal to engage in it.

ALLEGED SEXUAL OFFENCE INVOLVING MINOR: Kemeseng Kexx Sanneh IN POLICE CUSTODY

By JarranewsTV Staff Reporter

JarranewsTV has been reliably informed that Mr. Kemeseng Sanneh, widely known as “Kexx,” has been taken into police custody in connection with an alleged sexual offence involving a minor.
According to information confirmed by the Gambia Police Force, the case involves a 17-year-old schoolgirl who reportedly became pregnant and has since given birth.
In an official statement released on April 10, 2026, police at the Kairaba Police Station disclosed that they are actively investigating the matter. The suspect, identified as Kemeseng Sanneh, alias “Kexx,” remains in custody as inquiries continue.
Authorities have indicated that further updates will be provided as the investigation progresses.
JarranewsTV will continue to follow this developing story and provide timely updates as more information becomes available.

Defending The Rule of Law: Why Attorney General Dawda Jallow Is Right

 

By Yaya Dampha 

In  every functioning democracy, public debate and scrutiny of government officials are both necessary and healthy. However, there is a clear line between constructive criticism and the growing culture of intimidation and political pressure aimed at forcing public officials out of office whenever controversy arises. The recent calls by some opposition figures and self styled media activists demanding the resignation of attorney general and minister of justice dawda a. Jallow must therefore be viewed with caution and a sense of fairness.

Minister jallow’s position is both constitutionally sound and politically responsible. As he clearly stated during his press briefing, he serves at the pleasure of president adama barrow. In any democratic system, ministers are appointed by the president and remain in office until they decide to resign or until the appointing authority decides otherwise. This principle is not unique to the gambia; it is the foundation of executive governance in democratic states across the commonwealth and beyond.

To suggest that a minister should resign simply because critics demand it is to undermine the very structure of democratic accountability. Governments cannot function if public officials are constantly harassed or intimidated into leaving their positions over every controversy or perceived failure.

More importantly, the notion that a justice ministry must win every case in court is both unrealistic and legally flawed. No justice department anywhere in the world wins one hundred percent of its cases. The role of the ministry of justice is to prosecute matters before the courts based on available evidence, but the ultimate decision lies with an independent judiciary. That independence is precisely what gambians fought for during the years of authoritarian rule.

If the courts acquit an accused person, it does not automatically mean that the prosecution failed in its duty or that the justice ministry is incompetent. It simply means that the court, after evaluating the evidence presented, determined that the threshold required for conviction had not been met. That is how the rule of law functions in a democratic society.

Minister jallow also rightly reminded the public of an important legal distinction that many critics deliberately ignore: an acquittal does not necessarily equate to innocence. It simply means that the evidence presented before the court was insufficient to meet the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is a cornerstone principle of criminal justice systems throughout the world.

Those who claim to be investigative journalists must also ask themselves an honest question: where is their investigative work on the issues they now loudly criticize? Journalism has always played a crucial role in uncovering truth, even during the most difficult times in our country’s history.

As a reporter for foroyaa newspaper during the dictatorship of former president yahya jammeh, i personally undertook investigations into some of the most sensitive cases of that era. Following the march 22, 2006 alleged coup plot, the government claimed that daba marenah and five other officers escaped during a prison transfer after their vehicle reportedly crashed into a ditch and nearly somersaulted on the way to janjanbureh prison. I took it upon myself as a journalist to investigate the matter and present the facts to my editor in chief.

The same investigative commitment guided my reporting on the disappearance of chief ebrima manneh and the case of ousman “rambo” jatta. These were not easy assignments, especially under a repressive system where journalists faced intimidation and persecution.

If such investigations could be conducted during a dictatorship, what prevents today’s journalists from doing the same in a democratic gambia where press freedom is significantly greater?

Rather than calling for resignations at every turn, journalists and activists should dedicate their energy to uncovering facts and presenting evidence that contributes meaningfully to public understanding.

Public officials, like every professional in society, are not immune to mistakes or challenges in the execution of their duties. In our daily lives, how many of us perform our jobs without ever encountering setbacks or failures? Doctors lose patients, lawyers lose cases, engineers face structural problems, and journalists occasionally publish stories that later require correction.

Acknowledging this reality does not mean celebrating failure. It simply means recognizing that governance and justice are complex processes where outcomes are not always guaranteed.

Attorney general dawda a. Jallow deserves to be judged  based on the broader performance of the justice system under his leadership, not on the emotional reactions surrounding individual cases. The ministry of justice operates within a legal framework that respects judicial independence, evidence based prosecution, and constitutional authority.

What the gambia needs today is not political hysteria but mature democratic engagement. The rule of law must remain guided by facts, legal principles, and institutional processes—not by the loudest voices on social media or partisan pressure groups.

Minister jallow’s refusal to be intimidated into resigning is therefore not arrogance; it is a reaffirmation of constitutional order and the independence of public office.

In a democracy, accountability matters—but so too does fairness.

Foreign Expertise Is Not Outsourcing Justice: Why The Gambia’s Transitional Justice Must Prioritize Credibility Over Sentiment

By Yaya Dampha
NPP Diaspora Coordinator

With due respect to Alagi Yorro Jallow= Mbading's reflection on the government’s appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor for Jammeh-era crimes, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion. The realities of post-dictatorship justice across the world clearly show that engaging foreign prosecutors is neither a confession of institutional weakness nor a surrender of national sovereignty. In many instances, it is a deliberate and strategic decision aimed at ensuring impartiality, credibility, and technical competence in highly sensitive prosecutions.

Mbading  history provides many examples.   Countries emerging from dictatorship or conflict have frequently relied on international prosecutors or hybrid justice mechanisms to deal with crimes of national trauma. Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cambodia all incorporated foreign judges and prosecutors in their post-conflict justice systems. These countries were not lacking in capable legal professionals. Rather, they recognized that transitional justice demands extraordinary neutrality and global credibility—especially when prosecuting crimes tied to former regimes and powerful institutions.

The issue in The Gambia is not the absence of competent Gambians. On the contrary, Gambian legal professionals have distinguished themselves globally. Gambians have served at the Rwanda Tribunal in Arusha, the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and in several other international judicial bodies. These achievements demonstrate the intellectual and professional capacity of Gambian jurists. But this very reality also reinforces the principle that justice today is a collaborative global effort. Just as Gambians have been invited by other nations to prosecute sensitive cases abroad, The Gambia can equally invite foreign expertise to support prosecutions of historic national importance.

We must also acknowledge the social realities of a small country like ours. Gambian society is tightly interconnected—families, communities, and professional networks are deeply intertwined. Many individuals involved in Jammeh-era cases may have personal, political, or social ties with those within the justice system. In such an environment, the perception of bias can easily undermine public confidence in the process. An independent foreign prosecutor can therefore serve as a neutral professional buffer, helping to reassure victims, the accused, and the public that justice will be administered fairly and without local pressures from badinyaa, siñoyaa and  teriyaa. Remember Balafaa beh lonĝŋõlenoma.

Furthermore, the crimes arising from the Jammeh era are not ordinary criminal matters. They involve allegations of torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and potentially crimes against humanity. Such cases require specialized expertise in international criminal law, complex investigative procedures, command responsibility doctrine, cross-border evidence gathering, witness protection systems, and forensic documentation. Even countries with far stronger judicial infrastructures sometimes bring in international prosecutors when dealing with crimes of this magnitude.

Another important dimension is international credibility. Jammeh-era prosecutions will inevitably attract scrutiny from international human rights organizations, foreign governments, and global legal institutions. Having a prosecutor with international experience can strengthen the perception that these trials meet global legal standards and are insulated from political influence or domestic rivalries.

It is also important to remember that while the victims of Jammeh-era abuses are mainly Gambians, there were also non-Gambian victims who suffered during that dark period. Because these crimes affected both Gambian citizens and foreign nationals, the accountability process naturally carries an international dimension. Engaging foreign expertise therefore does not dilute Gambian justice; it strengthens the legitimacy and universality of the process.

For these reasons, the appointment of a foreign Special Prosecutor should not be framed as “outsourcing justice.” Justice remains fundamentally Gambian. The crimes were committed on Gambian soil, the victims are predominantly Gambian, the courts are Gambian, and the laws under which prosecutions will proceed are Gambian laws. The presence of a foreign prosecutor is simply a professional reinforcement designed to ensure that the prosecutions are conducted to the highest possible standard.

Ultimately, the central objective should be clear: to successfully prosecute Jammeh-era crimes and deliver justice to victims. The debate should not revolve around the nationality of the prosecutor but rather around the credibility, competence, and effectiveness of the process.

The victims—mainly Gambians and also some non-Gambians—deserve a justice process that is fair, credible, and capable of delivering accountability without failure. In matters of transitional justice, success is not measured by symbolism but by results. History will judge The Gambia not by who led the prosecution, but by whether justice was ultimately done.