Gambiaj.com – (DAKAR, Senegal) – The Constitutional Council of Senegal has partially censured the law establishing the National Media Regulatory Council (CNRM), ruling that some provisions of the legislation violate constitutional protections of press freedom and fundamental rights.
The decision follows a legal challenge filed on March 10, 2026, by several opposition lawmakers, including Aïssata Tall Sall and Thierno Alassane Sall. The petitioners contested several provisions of the new law, arguing that certain articles posed serious threats to freedom of expression and the rights of media professionals.
In its ruling, the country’s highest constitutional authority declared the petition admissible and affirmed its jurisdiction to review the legislation creating the CNRM. After examining the substance of the case, the court concluded that some of the contested provisions imposed disproportionate restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
Central to the ruling were the sanctions outlined in Article 33 of the law. The court struck down provisions allowing the CNRM to order the closure of newspapers or news websites in cases of “repeated violations.”
According to the judges, granting an administrative regulator the authority to shut down media outlets constitutes an excessive measure that infringes on constitutionally protected press freedom.
The majority party, PASTEF, had included the measure in the draft law to sanction repeated professional breaches by media organizations.
However, journalists and opposition figures had warned that such a power could easily be abused, potentially allowing authorities to close outlets whose editorial lines conflict with those of the government.
The Constitutional Council similarly invalidated provisions permitting the closure of the premises of a media company for violations of regulatory obligations. The judges ruled that such a sanction must remain under the authority of the courts and cannot be exercised solely by a regulatory body.
Beyond annulling specific provisions, the court also issued key interpretative clarifications aimed at limiting the scope of the law. In particular, it defined the notion of “illegal content” in Article 39 concerning the removal of content and Article 41 relating to “precautionary measures.”
The Council ruled that only content that harms a person’s honor or reputation, or that threatens public order, may justify such removal measures.
Importantly, the court emphasized that any action to sanction or restrict media activity on these grounds must be authorized by a judge.
The regulatory authority cannot initiate such measures independently, a clarification that observers say prevents the CNRM from acting as a discretionary censor of editorial content.
The ruling also imposed safeguards on the use of public force by the regulator, requiring prior judicial authorization before such measures can be enforced.
In addition, the court specified that corrective measures – such as requiring media outlets to publish official statements to rectify errors – must be done in a way that does not damage the reputation of the affected media organization.
Overall, the decision establishes a legal balance between the regulation of the media sector and the protection of fundamental freedoms, reaffirming the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality in any sanctions imposed on the press.
Leave a Reply