Indpendent View Public figures No private lives

We have made our point again and again in the past. We will not shudder or baulk from the responsibility of making it clear one more time. Public figures do not have anything resembling a private life. By all stretch of the imagination, accepting to become the servant of the public, put public officials at the mercy of their own actions be they moral or immoral, honourable or shameful and cruel or goodly. As part of the blunt realities of being politicians and celebrities, they have to come to terms with the absence of any distinction between what is private and what is public as far as their lives are concerned. Neither can they determine what is to be seen as private or public. They should know that they are in a minefield where their every action is interpreted in the context of their role as public figures. They are simply walking a tightrope and slipping by any means could not only mean disaster for them personally but a disaster for the nation as well.

Our constitution is quite unequivocal about it. While it guarantees privacy for the individual, case law has shown that in most cases, public figures forfeit their right to privacy as long as they continue to serve the public. In the same vein journalists are also protected under Section 23 of the same state document in the course of their investigation and report of immoral activities, threats to national security, public safety, corruption and health risk. That was why The Independent published a recent story for which it was damned. Reporting a fight between an Honourable woman and a minister’s wife was not only legally within the ambit of our work but was also incontrovertibly true. There was every right to report the incident, which happens to involve two public figures – a pertinent sediment for public digest.

In this case we have firm facts to support details of the story, which was interestingly augmented by confirmations from the honourable woman and the mighty minister. What more should The Independent require to go to press with the story? If the constitution of The Gambia is anything to go by, we have absolutely no case to answer for it – absolutely nothing to be blamed for. True publishing anything about the incident may have some damaging implications on the persons of Honourable Diab and Minister Badjie. But with due respect to their fears and with due knowledge of their tears, the public’s right to know about happenings involving their public servants remains overriding.

If we had given in to their plea and shelf the story, we would have done injustice to the cause of others who have been the unrelenting butt of bad press before them. Inasmuch as the story was not written with any judgmental prejudice or malice against both personalities, its situational convenience or inconvenience on them is an area of complete disinterest to The Independent, whose only premise was based on the assertion that such a reported incident was of the public interest.

Moreover, statements described as “untrue” by Honourable Diab were indeed true and expressly reflected what happened on that particular Tuesday evening. In fact it was “written” all over the place by the time it was hushed. The Independent has nothing against her or what she stood for. In fact prior to this story she benefited from what was a “positive press” from The Independent. This just shows that The Independent is out to praise or curse no one.