The Ministry of Information’s latest press release seeks to clarify the purpose of the National Misinformation and Disinformation Response Centre (NMDRC), presenting it as a public platform to verify information, monitor false narratives, and promote accurate communication through AI-supported analysis and anonymous submissions. According to the Ministry, the centre will be non-regulatory, non-censoring, and independently governed with participation from civil society and media professionals. On paper, these are reassuring claims.
The central problem is not the stated intention, but the absence of detail. The Ministry has not explained how this so-called independent governing body will be constituted, who will appoint its members, what their tenure will be, or what legal or policy framework will guide its operations. There is no publicly available statute, memorandum of understanding, or institutional blueprint. Yet, despite these glaring gaps, the centre is scheduled for launch within days. For a body that claims to safeguard credibility and transparency, this lack of transparency is itself troubling.
There is no denying that misinformation and disinformation are global plagues. From Australia banning children from social media to the EU wrestling with algorithmic transparency, every nation is struggling. That struggle is real. But the question before the Gambia is not whether to fight falsehoods. It is who who should be entrusted with that responsibility.
A government-led “national response centre” to determine what constitutes misinformation is, by any standard, unprecedented in a democratic setting. It raises legitimate concerns about overreach, bias, and the erosion of fundamental rights, particularly the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, and media. No amount of carefully crafted language, however grounded in human rights or public interest rhetoric, can substitute for genuine institutional independence. So long as this centre is housed within, initiated by, or linked to a ministry, it carries the unavoidable risk of control and manipulation.
This concern is grounded in context. The Gambia’s experience with state media offers a cautionary tale. Gambia Radio and Television Services was similarly framed as a professional, independent public service institution. In reality, it evolved into a platform largely aligned with government narratives, marginalizing dissenting voices. That history cannot be ignored when evaluating new state-led initiatives in the information space.
In fact, the Ministry has gone further to create a fact-checking platform: www.factguard.gov.gm. Why? factchecking is not a function of government!
If the Ministry is genuinely committed to building a credible, independent mechanism to address misinformation, the logical course would have been to entrust the initiative entirely to independent actors such as fact-checking organizations, civil society institutions, or established bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission or the Information Commission. The Gambia already has a growing ecosystem of fact-checkers and media actors with demonstrated capacity and public trust. Why not strengthen and empower them instead of creating a parallel, state-linked structure?
The unanswered questions only deepen skepticism. Is the NMDRC a statutory body or an administrative unit within the Ministry? Who appoints its leadership? What safeguards exist against political interference? What accountability mechanisms will ensure neutrality? Without clear answers, the claim of independence remains unconvincing.
There is also a credibility deficit that cannot be ignored. The Ministry and its leadership have, on multiple occasions, been at the center of contested information, often resisting scrutiny from independent media and fact-checkers. In that context, the creation of a state-backed “verification centre” risks being perceived not as a neutral service, but as an attempt to counter, undermine, or overshadow independent voices that hold power to account.
Well-worded press releases cannot erase institutional realities. Those who have engaged in governance, media, and civil society work in the Gambia for long understand how such initiatives can evolve once operational. The risk is not wishful thinking but informed by experience.
So let this be a wakeup call to anyone who associates with this centre: you will be asked to lend credibility to a structure designed to destroy the very independence you represent. Demand better. Demand that the centre be entirely divorced from government control. Demand it be handed over to media, fact-checking, and civil society organizations or the independent statutory bodies that already exist.
Until then, the people of the Gambia are right to see this not as a bulwark against disinformation, but as the next chapter in a very old story: the state capturing the truth. And we have read that chapter before.
Democracy does not require the state to arbitrate truth. It requires the state to protect the space in which truth can be contested, verified, and established by independent actors. Any initiative that blurs that line, however well-intentioned it may appear, risks undermining the very freedoms it claims to protect.
For The Gambia, Our Homeland
