** Freedom of expression and its limits: the case of Daniel Safu in the Democratic Republic of Congo **
The recall to order by the Higher Council of Audiovisual and Communication (CSAC) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) concerning former national deputy Daniel Safu raises essential questions on freedom of expression in the country. His summons, following remarks made during a program disseminated on PSTV, highlights the tensions between political criticism and media regulation.
** Context of the situation **
Daniel Safu, in his program “The people speaks” broadcast on April 1, 2025, would have made criticism against state authorities, which led to accusations of shortcomings with regard to the laws governing the press and communication in the DRC. The CSAC, in charge of supervising the media and ensuring their compliance with the law, evokes potential violations of several articles governing the behavior of communicators in the country. This dynamic is not new in the DRC, where tensions between the media and the power in place are often marked by accusations of censorship and abusive use of the legislation to control public discourse.
** Freedom of expression: a fundamental right in question **
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any democracy. It allows the emergence of a rich and varied public debate, essential to the development of a society. However, this freedom is often put to the test, especially when the remarks made are perceived as attacks towards public figures or institutions. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. This raises the question of to what extent this freedom must be protected in the face of discourses which can be perceived as harmful.
Taking into account the particularity of the DRC, where historical history of the press repression exist, the reaction of the CSAC could be interpreted as a defensive administrative act or as a control measure. In this context, it is crucial to assess whether the accusations are justified or whether they are a desire to silence critical voices.
** The implications of SAFU’s summons **
Daniel Safu’s summons raises questions on the road to follow for the Congolese state. On the one hand, it could be perceived as a legitimate attempt to maintain standards in public discourse, particularly in a country where political polarization is palpable. On the other hand, it could crystallize the perception of a hostile media environment, where journalists and commentators fear repercussions for their opinions.
The warning of the CSAC, according to which the refusal to arise could lead to more severe sanctions, further accentuates this pressure. This raises a reflection on the rule of law and the way in which laws are applied. If the desire to regulate public discourse is understandable, it is much more imperative to guarantee that this regulation does not transform the media landscape into a space where criticism is suffocated rather than discussed.
** Reflection on media responsibility **
As part of this case, it is also necessary to wonder what is the role of the media in the political debate. Journalistic responsibility involves not only reporting facts but also contributing to the training of public opinion on the basis of verified data and informed analyzes. The criticism of institutions is essential, but it must be formulated in a constructively and respectful manner to promote a productive exchange.
** Towards a constructive approach **
Beyond the sanctions, this situation offers an opportunity for dialogue. Regulatory bodies, journalists, and political actors must initiate a discussion on the nature and limits of freedom of expression in the DRC. Discussion forums could promote exchanges between these entities, making it possible to lay collective bases for an enriched public discourse and respectful of the various voices present in Congolese society.
In conclusion, Daniel Safu’s case recalls that freedom of expression and media regulation are not opposite, but must coexist in a dynamic of balance. The state, the media and civil society have a role to play in guaranteeing a space where constructive criticism is not only accepted but encouraged, which is fundamental to the democratic health of the Democratic Republic of Congo.