The announcement by the Ministry of Information, Media, and Broadcasting Services to establish a “National Misinformation and Disinformation Response Centre” (NMDRC) should concern anyone committed to democratic governance. History teaches that governments often cloak control of information in the language of truth and public service. From the propaganda machinery of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda to contemporary authoritarian regimes such as North Korea, the pattern is familiar: define a problem, exaggerate its urgency, then centralize power to “manage” truth.
The very name of the proposed centre signals this approach. It presumes a national crisis of misinformation/disinformation requiring state intervention. Yet available evidence does not support such a characterization. Findings by the National Human Rights Commission indicate that political figures themselves are the leading sources of misinformation and hate speech. If that is the case, then the question is how can a government credibly position itself as the arbiter of truth when it is an active participant in the problem?
Dr. Ismaila Ceesay himself is the leading propagator of misinformation/disinformation hence the most fact checked individual in the history of the Gambia! What legitimacy does he have therefore to complain and address misinformation and disinformation?
More fundamentally, this initiative represents a distortion of the proper role of a ministry of information in a democracy. Governments are not truth tribunals. Their mandate is to communicate policies, provide public information, and ensure access to information. They are not to police speech, adjudicate competing narratives, or regulate the opinions of citizens, media, or opposition actors.
Those functions belong in a pluralistic ecosystem of independent media, fact-checking institutions, and civil society actors who operate without state control.
A state-run “response centre” inevitably raises concerns of selectivity and bias. It is difficult to imagine such a body rigorously scrutinizing statements emanating from government officials with the same zeal it would apply to critics. The risk, therefore, is not that the centre will clarify public discourse, but that it will distort it by targeting non-state voices while shielding those in power. In that sense, it becomes less a mechanism for truth and more an instrument of narrative management.
Public trust cannot be manufactured through state surveillance of speech. No serious democratic society expects citizens to rely on government platforms as neutral referees of information. Just as an opposition-run “truth centre” would be dismissed as partisan, a government-controlled equivalent will struggle for legitimacy. Credibility in the information space is earned through independence, transparency, and accountability and not through authority.
If Minister Dr. Ismaila Ceesay wishes to strengthen the information ecosystem, there are far more constructive avenues available. Let him reform GRTS into a genuinely independent public broadcaster to ensure diverse voices are represented. Let him strengthen PURA to enforce quality standards in telecommunications and utilities and address real service delivery concerns. Let him support the Media Council and invest in media capacity to enhance professionalism and accountability within the sector itself. These are tangible reforms that would improve information integrity without compromising fundamental freedoms.
The danger in the current proposal is not merely institutional overreach. Rather, it is the precedent it sets. When governments begin to define truth and police expression, the boundary between democratic governance and authoritarian control becomes dangerously thin. The lesson from history, from Nazi Germany to more recent experiences, including the excesses of our most recent government itself under Tinpot Dictator Yaya Jammeh is that control over information is often the first step toward control over citizens.
The path forward is clear. Let us urge Ismaila Ceesay and his Ministry to resist the temptation to expand into areas that undermine democratic norms. A government confident in its legitimacy does not fear scrutiny or dissent. It engages, informs, and is held accountable. That is the standard a democratic Gambia must uphold, which is Ismaila’s job to do, and not control.
I hereby urge all citizens, media, the opposition, businesses, and civil society to be even more vigilant. Protecting freedom of expression is not simply about resisting censorship, it is about preventing the gradual normalization of state control over thought and discourse.
Dr. Ismaila Ceesay must be told to withdraw from the authoritarian path in which he has set himself since he came into our government.
For The Gambia, Our Homeland. Resistance!
