OPINION
By Cherno Baba Jallow
Rarely, and certainly not in the annals of Gambian history, does a sitting president file a lawsuit against a newspaper. But then again it should summon no disbelief, if leaders feel wronged by a newspaper reporting and thus decide to pursue legal means for adjudication.
In a clean break from the past, an ugly past of leadership by reprisal, President Adama Barrow recently sued The Voice newspaper for reporting that he had chosen the businessman Muhammed Jah as his successor and was working on a plan to step down from the presidency. Time was, and not too long ago, Barrow’s predecessor would have, and just because he could do it, ordered the rounding up of The Voice journalists and for their incarceration. Or worse.
But these are buoyant times for the press and free speech in The Gambia. The new political environment, long decontaminated from the vestiges of authoritarianism, has ushered a full return to a constitutional mode of political living. Fear, since banished from the hearts of Gambians, has been supplanted by outspokenness. Now, the citizens openly question and ridicule their leaders. And newspapers are thriving in a tolerant political environment to report the news and editorialize on it without fear and the likelihood of detention and physical harm.
This is why the recent arrest of The Voice journalists was alarming —- alarming in the sense that it brought a chilling reminder of what life once, and recently, was.
Granted, Barrow had the right to sue The Voice, but the legal move was unnecessary and counterintuitive, not because of the suit in and of itself —- that’s for the court to decide, but mainly because of the news article itself. It was carved out of idle banter, and hence, needed to be taken for what it thoroughly lacked: depth and editorial discretion. The latter is key because it underscores the need for newspapers to have editors with a keen sense of the news, the conceptual and conclusive stages of a story and its airtight irrefutability.
The Voice article’s headline was bold and conclusive: ‘’Barrow Chooses Muhammed Jah as Successor As Pres. Works on Exit Plan – Sources.’’ This gave the readers an immediate impression that the story was detailed with anecdotes and quotes from the paper’s sources. But there was none in the article. It had no supporting legs, as in, say, emails, text messages, audio recordings. The paper didn’t even directly contact the president or his inner circle —- not NPP mid-level leaders, but his press officer or information minister. And nor did it contact Jah, the main protagonist of the story. Or, it is possible that the paper did in fact contact both of them or tried without success. If it did, the readers never saw it in the reporting. This is sloppy journalism.
An article of this magnitude —- about a president stepping down and handpicking a successor — should never be rushed into print. It should be multi-sourced and thoroughly vetted for accuracy and newsworthiness. And it should trigger a sufficient amount of editorial skepticism because this story defies believability. Consider: Barrow stepping down and choosing a businessman as a successor, sidestepping all the senior leaders of his party who have been in the political dug-out with him since the beginning. It just didn’t make any sense. And a few weeks prior to the publication of the article, Barrow had announced that he would seek another term by contesting the 2026 elections.
But the issue is no longer about the professional malpractice of a fledgling newspaper. It is about the ill-conceived move to go after journalists on an issue bordering on frivolousness. Abound, are instances justifying the need for a president to sue members of the press. This isn’t one of them. A simple rebuttal from the president himself or his spokesman would have sufficed.
Throughout his presidency, Barrow’s conduct on matters of the press and of free speech has been overwhelmingly conciliatory. He has been remarkably tolerant. At a campaign rally in Wellingara in 2021 during the last presidential elections, Barrow told the crowd.; ‘’Now you can say anything you want; nothing will happen.’’ He added: ‘’If you wish to do it, you can spend all your time castigating President Barrow; I am not going to respond to you.’’
It’s a mark of tolerance still to seek redress in the courts rather than deploy the coercive might of presidential power to go after journalists. But Barrow’s lawsuit against The Voice stretches credulity. What does the president hope to achieve out of this legal maneuver? Force the journalists to recant their story? Jail them? The longer this case drags on, the higher the potential for an encroachment on press freedom. Does Barrow really want to go there? Does he want to jeopardize his impressive record on free speech? He should resist the authoritarian temptation. He should drop this case. Immediately.
