Journalism is often celebrated as the “fourth estate,” a watchdog that amplifies silenced voices and holds power to account. But journalism also carries a heavy ethical responsibility, particularly when interviewees are vulnerable, traumatised, or politically exposed.
The recent interview conducted by Gambian broadcaster Peter Gomez with Abdoulie Sanyang has sparked debate regarding interviewee protection. Instead of providing safeguards for Abdoulie, a visibly traumatised survivor of dictatorship and a critic of the current regime, the interview may have inadvertently amplified his vulnerability and led to his subsequent arrest.
This case demands a deeper reflection on journalistic ethics, the duty of care, and the dangers of reckless broadcasting in fragile democracies like The Gambia.
Abdoulie’s Vulnerability:
From the outset, Abdoulie was not a neutral subject. He was a man shaped by historical trauma: persecution under Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship and disillusionment under Adama Barrow’s administration. His testimony was raw, emotional, and unfiltered, a clear signal of his fragile state.
Any ethical journalist would generally recognise such vulnerabilities. However, Abdoulie was prompted to recount painful experiences and share sensitive information that could place him at risk. He was not shielded; he became exposed.
The Duty of Care in Journalism:
Journalistic codes of ethics, whether from the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) or UNESCO, highlight a simple but vital principle: “minimise harm.”
This means:
Preparing interviewees for risks before going on air.
Recognising when an individual is too vulnerable to proceed.
Redirecting or pausing an interview if harmful disclosures begin.
Prioritising human safety over sensational content.
By these standards, Peter Gomez may not have met expectations. Abdoulie did not appear adequately prepared, properly protected, or shielded from his vulnerability.
Ethical Red Flags in the Interview:
Several troubling issues stand out:
1. Lack of Preparation
Abdoulie’s disclosures suggested he was unaware of the potential consequences of his words. A prepared interviewee knows where the lines are; Abdoulie did not.
2. Failure to Intervene
In my view, once Abdoulie began divulging incriminating information, Peter should have stepped in by redirecting, softening the conversation, or even halting the broadcast. With hindsight, did Peter intervene enough or not at all?
3. Exploitation of Vulnerability
Abdoulie’s emotional state was obvious. Continuing to press him under these conditions raises the question: Was Peter observant and well aware of Abdoulie’s emotional state?
4. Possible Complicity
Abdoulie’s arrest, not immediately after the interview, raises suspicions. Was Peter neglectful of Abdoulie? Was Abdoulie already a target of our state security system, and did the interview make it possible for the net to be cast on Abdoulie?
Should the Interview Have Been Abandoned?
The short answer is yes. Interviews are not sacred. They can be paused or even scrapped if they pose a risk to the subject. A responsible journalist would have recognised Abdoulie’s distress, the risks of self-incrimination, and the political climate of The Gambia.
Instead, Peter pressed on. This was not courage; it was recklessness.
The Gambian Context
The dangers Abdoulie faced were not hypothetical; they were real and predictable.
The Jammeh dictatorship (1994–2017) left behind deep scars: killings, torture, forced disappearances, and exile. When Gambians voted Jammeh out in 2016, they hoped Adama Barrow’s government would protect freedoms. Instead, repression persists: dissent is criminalised, whistle-blowers are targeted, and security forces remain unaccountable.
In this environment, Abdoulie’s words were always going to be scrutinised by the state. Any journalist should have recognised this risk. Was this an ethical shortcoming on Peter’s side?
Was It a Setup?
This question cannot be avoided. It is a relevant question given the aftermath of what Abdoulie thought allowed him to express his thoughts and experiences freely. Was Abdoulie deliberately led into incriminating himself?
We cannot prove intent. But several facts raise suspicion:
Peter persisted despite Abdoulie’s visible fragility.
Sensitive disclosures were allowed to air unchecked.
Abdoulie was arrested as he was about to leave the country. In the interview Peter at some stage asked Abdoulie if he felt safe from being arrested. Abdoulie re-emphasized the point that he was expressing his personal views and must be seen in that context by Peter and by Peter’s audience.
Even if not deliberate, the effect is the same: In my view Abdoulie was left exposed, unsupported, and punished for his words.
The Human Cost:
The consequences of this ethical lapse are devastating. Abdoulie is now in custody, his life disrupted, his trauma deepened. What should have been an opportunity to share his truth became a tool of persecution.
This is the human cost of careless journalism.
Questions for Peter Gomez
This episode leaves urgent questions unanswered:
1. Did you brief Abdoulie on the risks of speaking openly?
2. Did you consider abandoning the interview once it became unsafe?
3. Do you accept any responsibility for Abdoulie’s arrest?
4. Did you uphold enough journalistic integrity?
5. Was Abdoulie’s vulnerability exploited for content?
These are not rhetorical. They are calls for accountability.
Towards Trauma-Informed Journalism
Peter is one of the most seasoned journalists in the country.
The Gambia’s media landscape is fragile. Journalists must learn to engage with vulnerable individuals responsibly. That means adopting trauma-informed journalism, an approach that prioritizes the safety, dignity, and agency of survivors and dissidents.
Key steps include:
Ensuring interviewees give informed consent.
Setting clear boundaries before going on air.
Recognising emotional distress and stopping when necessary.
Avoiding sensationalism at the expense of human dignity.
Providing post-interview support where possible.
Without these safeguards, journalism risks becoming complicit in state oppression rather than a bulwark against it.
Conclusion:
The interview between Peter Gomez and Abdoulie Sanyang was a failure of ethics, responsibility, and care. Abdoulie was vulnerable, traumatised, and politically exposed. Instead of protecting him, the interview amplified his vulnerability and paved the way for his arrest.
In my view, this was not an act of fearless journalism; it was an act of negligence.
In fragile democracies like The Gambia, where the legacy of dictatorship still looms and repression persists, journalists must hold themselves to higher standards. To “minimise harm” is not optional; it is the bedrock of integrity. In my view, Peter Gomez’s interview is a stark reminder of what happens when this principle is ignored: vulnerable people become casualties, and journalism loses its moral authority.
References:
African Centre for Media & Information Literacy (2021). Journalism Ethics and Integrity in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. Abuja: AFRICMIL.
Amnesty International (2023). The Gambia 2022/2023 Report. Retrieved from: https://www.amnesty.org/…/west-and-central-africa/gambia/
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). (2022). Journalists in Gambia face intimidation despite a democratic transition. Retrieved from: https://cpj.org/
Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press.
McGoldrick, A. (2006). Reporting Conflict: New Directions in Peace Journalism. University of Queensland Press.
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). (2014). SPJ Code of Ethics. Retrieved from: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
UNESCO (2019). Journalism, Fake News, and Disinformation: A Handbook for Journalism Education and Training. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Human Rights Council (2021). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression: Safety of Journalists. New York: United Nations.
Williams, K. (2019). Journalism Ethics and Regulation (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
World Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders). (2023). The Gambia Profile. Retrieved from: https://rsf.org.
Thank you for being a part of the OPEN GAMBIA PLATFORM community. Your support means the world to us! Please follow our page to keep up with our latest posts, and don’t forget to hit that like button and share our content with your friends.
You can now write for the Open Gambia Platform, share information anonymously, and join the community. Please share your stories! Salifu
Manneh contributed to the article on 22nd August 2025! Contributors’ views are strictly personal and not of The OpenGambia Platform!
By Salifu Manneh
