The dangers of misinformation and emotionally manipulative rhetoric are all too real. Honorable Gibba’s revelation regarding diaspora voting underscores a crucial issue: our current Constitution limits this process, requiring a constitutional amendment before it can be enacted. It is imperative that we engage in constructive discourse to address this urgent matter and ensure that the voices of our diaspora are heard and valued.
Alagi Yorro Jallow
Fatoumatta: In our increasingly digital world, the rapid proliferation of misinformation on social media poses an alarming threat to thoughtful public discourse. False narratives can spread with astonishing speed, often inciting emotional reactions and politicizing critical national issues, which ultimately hinders meaningful dialogue. Honorable Almameh Gibba, the National Assembly Member for Foni Kansala, has boldly stepped forward to clarify the recent rejection of the Diaspora Voting Bill. He pointed out that the legal framework governing the diaspora’s voting rights is strictly bound by constitutional provisions, making it impossible to advance the bill without first amending the Constitution. This vital clarification counters the misleading narratives circulated by some opposition colleagues. It is imperative for social media users to resist the temptation to share emotionally charged and politically biased statements. Instead, we must cultivate a culture of reasoned and fact-based discussions.
While freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is essential that our opinions on national issues are grounded in logic and free from emotional turmoil, political biases, or tribal affiliations. Constructive and impartial discourse is essential for genuine engagement on matters that affect all of us. It is truly disheartening to witness how misinformation and divisive narratives overshadow the chance for meaningful discourse. When national issues become politicized or tribalized, the opportunity for constructive dialogue and progress is severely undermined. Although social media serves as a powerful platform for expression, it frequently devolves into a breeding ground for propaganda and emotionally charged rhetoric, particularly when individuals pose as activists or journalists without accountability.
The challenge we face is fostering a culture that values facts, impartiality, and reason over bias and sensationalism. This is a daunting task, but it is one worthy of our efforts to ensure that national conversations prioritize unity and solutions rather than division. Fake news and misinformation on social media—be they propagated by governments or non-state actors—have been around long before the rise of these platforms. However, the scale and severity of contemporary influence operations are unprecedented, and their impact is likely to intensify as digital platforms continue to expand their reach, becoming ever more integral to our social, economic, and political lives. These efforts pose a significant cybersecurity challenge.
Fatoumatta: Democracies, which rely on the transparent and free exchange of information, are particularly susceptible to the corrosive effects of influence operations that disseminate fake news, disinformation, and propaganda. The very foundation of democratic governance rests on the assumption of an informed citizenry sharing a common understanding of facts and public narratives, along with solid trust in the information provided by institutions. This foundation is under threat from meticulously crafted influence operations, and the situation is poised to worsen with the advent of new “deep fake” technologies. We must act decisively to reclaim the integrity of our discourse and safeguard our democracy from the deleterious effects of misinformation.
Hon. Almameh Gibba, the National Assembly Member for Foni Kansala, has laid bare the limitations of our current legal framework regarding the diaspora’s right to vote, which is stifled by constitutional provisions. He argues that these challenges can and must be addressed through amendments to Sections 39 and 88, paving the way for diaspora voting. He further highlighted the role of Section 41 of the Constitution, which directs the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to create an Act for regulating voter registration, among other responsibilities. “While I recognize the significance of this provision in our discussions, I assert that focusing the Bill solely on Section 41 will not suffice unless we also amend Sections 39 and 88 to accommodate diaspora voting. Pursuing the Bill under Section 41 without modifying Sections 39 and 88 risks creating constitutional inconsistencies that cannot be overlooked.” He concluded that it is imperative for National Assembly members to amend the Constitution to enable diaspora voting, ensuring that all Gambians, regardless of their location, can fully engage in our democratic process.
Moreover, Hon. Almameh Gibba has courageously stepped forward to set the record straight about the realities at the National Assembly, countering misleading narratives propagated by some of his opposition colleagues. He has pointed out the constitutional constraints that currently prevent the passage of the Election Voting Bill for the diaspora, emphasizing that the Constitution must first be amended for the bill to take effect. Recently, I observed a flurry of comments and posts on social media regarding the rejection of the Diaspora Voting Bill by the National Assembly. Regrettably, much of this discourse is rife with misinformation and lacks accurate reporting. A crucial question arises: who truly voted against the Diaspora Voting Bill? The National Assembly comprises 58 members, with the opposition holding 29 seats. The United Democratic Party (UDP) commands the largest representation, with 15 members, yet only 14 of them voted in favor of the bill. What about the other opposition members? Is it fair to assert that only the UDP supported the bill through their 15 members? What of the other parties’ voting patterns? It is not only misleading but utterly absurd to suggest that only the National People’s Party (NPP) opposed this vital bill, particularly when, as reported by UDP’s Madi Ceesay, only 25 members voted against it.
Fatoumatta: Why should only these 25 be held accountable out of a total of 58? True intelligence is defined by the ability to synthesize diverse experiences and reinvent oneself in novel and unique ways. If fake news were merely an exercise in spreading misinformation, those who fall prey to such narratives would be either uninformed about the news or knowingly consuming falsehoods. Viewing fake news as a form of folklore, as articulated by Russell Frank, introduces a compelling perspective: that fake news is often enticing because it offers a moral narrative or affirms beliefs individuals already hold. In this light, self-proclaimed activists and feminists on social media can propagate these misleading stories as “alternative” information, thereby presenting a moral narrative that resonates with like-minded individuals. The realm of influence operations has a long and storied history, yet their potential reach today is magnified by the sheer scale of user engagement on digital platforms. These operations can issue messages that blend informational content with political allegories, organized by state actors, non-state actors, or a combination thereof. While efforts to shape public perception are not new, the expansive reach of these influence operations is significantly bolstered by today’s digital ecosystems, which house vast numbers of users.
In this troubling context, it is disheartening to observe the slow erosion of free speech principles under the current administration. They advocate for open dialogue when their political opponents advance ideas that they view as threatening to “cancel” individuals and concepts, yet they suppress student protests against war and dissenting opinions. Who are they truly protecting? This selective enforcement of what is deemed acceptable speaks to a disturbing trend of unprincipled governance that permeates the political spectrum and various movements. It prompts urgent and critical questions: What triggers this authoritarian control? What barriers obstruct open dialogue? What underlying motives drive this behavior?
Fatoumatta: When it comes to opinion evidence, the rule is unequivocal: a witness may not provide an opinion on a specialized subject unless they have the necessary skills or qualifications in that field. Furthermore, witnesses must refrain from expressing opinions on matters where the underlying facts can be conveyed clearly without subjective interpretation. Expert opinions must remain objective and quantifiable, strictly confined to the professional’s area of expertise. They should not venture into disputed territory, as such matters are best left to the interested parties. It is deeply concerning to observe the rampant spread of misinformation and the blame games that dominate social media, where virtually every national discourse in The Gambia has been politicized and tribalized. This alarming trend is largely fueled by self-proclaimed activists and opposition figures posing as journalists and advocates.
As a result, social media platforms are inundated with commentary saturated in propaganda, emotional appeals, and tribal bias. This reality underscores an urgent need for a transformative shift in how we engage in national conversations. In this political climate, my frustration grows with the preponderance of self-proclaimed experts—ignorant individuals, opportunists, and bigots—who dominate our television screens while masquerading as authorities in their respective legal fields. Being a lawyer or advocate does not automatically grant expertise in every area of law.
I am particularly disturbed by the uniquely Gambian phenomenon where one can predict a so-called constitutional, legal, or political expert’s viewpoint based merely on their surname or ethnic background. To those claiming to be activists, feminists, or specialists in legal, political, constitutional, or public policy matters on social media and television: your opinions must be grounded in legal principles—void of biases and tribal connotations. There is absolutely no room for affiliations like NPP, UDP, PDOIS, GMC, GDC, or any other political party in the realm of legal, public policy, or constitutional opinions. When fact-checkers themselves become mired in partisan agendas or reliant on sponsorships, they jeopardize their credibility and erode public trust in the very institutions that should champion the truth.
Fatoumatta: It is disheartening to witness impartiality being sacrificed for personal or political gain, leaving the public exposed to the dangers of misinformation. To pave the way forward, we must prioritize the rebuilding of credibility in fact-checking by fostering independent, transparent, and ethically driven organizations. When these entities operate free from undue influence, they can effectively serve as impartial arbiters of truth. Moreover, empowering citizens through media literacy programs will equip them to discern reliable information independently, rather than depending solely on intermediaries.
