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 —

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.