Fatoumatta: Cybercrime legislation is akin to a double-edged sword. The primary issue lies in the absence of a designated governmental authority tasked with securing the internet for all. It is vital to shield cyber data from unauthorized access and to deter bullies and perpetrators of violence, yet it is just as imperative to capture criminals. Achieving both objectives is challenging, but essential to ensure safety without infringing on freedom of expression or targeting dissent. The necessity of a specific cybercrime law is debatable, especially when existing laws on sedition, defamation, and libel are available for the judiciary to enforce, and considering that in a strong democracy, sedition laws may be superfluous.
Alagi Yorro Jallow
Part III
The Gambia is a remarkable country with unremarkable politics. In The Gambia, progressivism has assumed the guise of new fascism. With the reintroduction and endorsement of the draconian cybercrime law, also referred to as the social media law, The Gambia and its proponents have proclaimed their version of truth as the absolute. The architects of the infamous Yahya Jammeh era appear to have returned to their roles. The similarity is striking and uncomfortably familiar. While others progress, we seem to be regressing, reverting to the days of old.
To lament fascism is noble; to decry heartless power is divine. Yet, some tragedies are beyond tears and protests. How does a nation face a grief too deep for weeping? If wisdom dwells still in our elders, they may counsel us to greet such times with laughter, waiting for the tumultuous season to pass, as it will, leaving its grim harvest behind.
Gambians enjoy their distractions. Take the woodcutter who risks being devoured by the very tiger he saved. After seeking advice from a jackal, he ponders the justice of his predicament. Likewise, in the sphere of power, rulers often cement their rule with their subjects’ fealty, thus the saying: maintain a safe distance from royalty—they can be deadly.
In a detailed interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, they explored disinformation and the future of democracy. Former U.S. President Obama addressed the perils of misinformation in American society. He stressed the need to identify and fight disinformation, a global threat to democratic stability. Obama also cautioned that the erosion of local journalism, along with issues such as ethno-nationalism, misogyny, and racism, could prove “fatal” to democracy.
President Obama has emphasized the dangers of misinformation within American society. He remarked, “If we are unable to discern truth from falsehood, then the marketplace of ideas fundamentally fails.” This warning from Obama serves as a genuine call to action, even for the inattentive. He has consistently been the subject of elaborate disinformation campaigns, including the falsification and distribution of his birth certificate to challenge his political legitimacy.
In Obama’s account, his principal opponent, Donald Trump, is portrayed as a major contributor and enabler of misinformation. Trump’s notorious history of disseminating falsehoods overshadowed the U.S. presidency during this month’s elections, with Twitter actively suppressing his unfounded claims of electoral fraud and hidden plots to disrupt the voting process. This highlights the validity of Obama’s argument that social media companies should take on a more assertive editorial function. Nonetheless, his call for government regulation sparks a complex discussion.
Fatoumatta: Obama’s indignation resonated within the Gambian political arena. However, Gambian officials who swiftly highlighted favorable excerpts from the extensive interview are culpable of disseminating misinformation for their advantage. It is ironic to witness these politicians, who once utilized fake news to defame citizens, now acknowledging the very strategy they once practiced. Their concept of fake news deviates from the unverified, unless it is detrimental or unflattering to them.
The true concern lies in the danger of misinformation and the hypocrisy of governments that purport to advocate for genuine news—using recent events and unrelated images to criticize the government for its significant blunders. This situation presents a dilemma over who should be responsible for overseeing the regulation of the increasingly democratized domain of social media.
The potential complexity of answers and solutions is frequently overlooked. There is a strong call for Gambians to oppose the social media law, which was initially presented as a protection against online falsehoods and manipulation. The architects of the cybercrime law might not have fully accounted for the deep-seated distrust between the government and its citizens, nor the possibility of such legislation being exploited by a government notorious for flouting the rule of law.
President Barrow’s senior officials are defending the actions of their leader. Political forgetfulness is clouding the recollection of the Nana Cybercrime law, which laid the groundwork for the authoritarian tendencies of Barrow’s regime, designed in anticipation of such measures. Ironically, Barrow benefits from the comparison to his predecessor, Yahya Jammeh, who was even more despotic. As we fixate on the roots of our current predicament, the very essence of our nation is diminishing. What has brought us to this juncture?
Progressives are often compared to perfumed arsonists, masking the truth with sweet scents, setting it ablaze with falsehoods, and denying their involvement in the resulting chaos—claiming it serves the public good. They are equated with disease. Hence, instead of exhausting our limited energy on the symptoms of the Cybercrime Act, we should pursue a permanent cure for the affliction. ‘In Sickness and In Power,’ a book by Lord David Owen published in 2008, provides a stark narrative of the peculiar relationship between medicine and politics. Covering more than a century, it delves into the roles of political, military, security, and business leaders in societal turmoil. The book discusses mental and physical illnesses, folly, stupidity, and the dangerous arrogance that leads to the downfall of leaders. Owen particularly highlights ‘hubris syndrome’ in leadership as a grave threat to human freedom and welfare. A critic describes its symptoms as patterns of reckless behavior, poor judgment, and operational incompetence, often compounded by delusions of personal infallibility and immunity from political consequences. If we were a nation of readers, I would recommend this book to our political and security leaders—and to every voter who quickly regrets their decision after voting. Leaders who endorse misconduct may find themselves isolated during crises.
In Gambia, a prevalent view against the social media law is that existing legislation already covers online disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, and fake news. The judiciary is prepared to administer justice if anyone is harmed or slandered on digital platforms. Despite its broadly defined provisions, the Gambia Cybercrime law is designed to establish a framework for both government officials and citizens to maintain order in online interactions. The severe suppression of dissenting voices, reminiscent of tactics from autocratic regimes, raises concerns about government-regulated social media. Allowing politicians with vested interests to control social media could compromise this vital platform for governance. Social media acts as a last stronghold for the common people, representing their most significant form of leverage against governmental oppression. Its absence would grant unchecked power to a government that already dominates traditional media, potentially leading to an authoritarian regime similar to that of Hitler.
Ironically, government officials who may have previously exploited fake news are now spearheading social media legislation. Their approach is notable for its approval of China’s methods. Despite China’s crackdown on private media and dissent, including the international condemnation for the alleged detention of around one million Uighur Muslims in camps, it remains an authoritarian state. Senior officials from The Gambia, known for their unsubstantiated claims, would likely struggle in China if they were not in government positions.
For Gambians, there are important lessons to be learned from China’s experience. One is Beijing’s extraordinary transition from a nation where about 88 percent of its population lived below the poverty line in 1981 to a global economic force with a reported poverty rate of just 0.7 percent in 2020, and its goal to eradicate poverty by the uncertain year of 2023.
Moreover, the law’s sponsors failed to consider a lesson from China’s anti-corruption efforts. If Gambia were to impartially enforce capital punishment for grave corruption offenses, as China is reported to do, its government and political allies might suffer significant repercussions. However, they seem more preoccupied with the dangers of social media than the extreme poverty afflicting half the nation’s populace.
The government’s actions are not aimed at regulation or systematically stifling dissent. They label the issue as fake or false news. Despite acknowledging its presence as evidence mounted, the government disseminated propaganda. This led to engaging dominant digital media through contracts worth nearly 40 million dollars, drawing the attention of financially strong media firms to assist in the propaganda by overstating the government’s political achievements.
The battle against fake news cannot be sincerely undertaken by a government mired in denial and obfuscation, grappling with public sector corruption, and striving to abolish impunity. The irony is palpable when the government’s own spokesperson is caught spreading fake news while claiming to combat it. Further inquiries have highlighted the government’s hypocrisy. Such ethically dubious behavior suggests an intent by the government to suppress citizens’ rights. Additionally, the problem of sockpuppets in managing misinformation is dwarfed by the rising menace of deepfakes—artificial intelligence-generated videos that falsely depict individuals saying things they never did. Despite government-backed regulations, the legal hurdles presented by sockpuppetry and deepfakes in the pursuit of justice remain intricate.
Fatoumatta: As Obama has pointed out, social media companies need to reassess their handling of fake news and propaganda. It is the duty of designated authorities to penalize those who misuse social media, ensuring accountability even among government supporters. Since fake news can represent conflicting viewpoints or selectively presented facts, caution is necessary when engaging with a regulator that is also a competitor.
While I firmly believe in the freedom of expression, I also stress that every right comes with responsibilities. The freedom to express oneself does not grant the right to attack others’ integrity with falsehoods on social media due to political biases. I’ve seen many despicable posts that malign individuals’ integrity just for political advantage. In a court of law, the onus of proof is on the accuser. We must be vigilant and careful. Cyberstalking and other forms of reckless online behavior are criminal offenses that can exacerbate political tensions and provoke unrest. As a society, we must work together to curb the rise of cyberstalking and the spread of misinformation for the health of our society and nation.
The new cybercrime act stipulates that offenses must begin with ‘KNOWINGLY.’ For liability to be established, it must be shown that the individual was aware of the falsity of the information they disseminated. However, determining a person’s intent is difficult, which complicates securing convictions. Our attention is progressively on cybercrimes and the misuse of technology for hate speech and other divisive content on social media. While we uphold our citizens’ Constitutional rights to free expression and association, we will take decisive action if these rights infringe upon the rights of others or threaten National Security.
In this regard, I reiterate my call for all to exercise restraint, tolerance, and mutual respect when voicing their grievances and frustrations. The ongoing national dialogue on various political and religious issues is constructive and welcome. However, we must not forget the historical lessons that still echo today. The path of hatred and suspicion leads only to conflict and destruction. The majority of Gambians choose the path of peace and prosperity, as we continue to cherish and uphold our unity.
Fatoumatta: Governmental powers are akin to sacred garments, only befitting those who are worthy of them. All power is transient, including that wielded by those who have life-and-death control over their domains. If masquerades truly represent benevolent ancestors, then why do they cause destruction? Each masquerade noted for its malevolence will fail to remember, in its zenith of power, that the “Jamabadongo” festival is not eternal. As the “Benachin” feast inevitably ends, the one behind the mask must account for the sacrileges committed while wearing the hallowed attire. A prudent government ought to acknowledge the boundaries of its luck and judgment.
