** Tensions within the CSAC: a hearing that raises crucial questions about freedom of expression and governance **
On April 8, 2024, a significant hearing took place on the premises of the National Cybersecurity Council (CNC), awakening questions about the state of democratic institutions in the country. Three influential members of the Superior Council of Audiovisual and Communication (CSAC), Jean-Pierre Eale, Serge Kabongo and Arthur Mayala, were selected for a hearing that lasted several hours, without any official communication being done with regard to the reasons for this summons. This radio silence echoes an atmosphere of already palpable tension within the CSAC, an institution supposed to protect the free movement of information and democracy.
### Governance in question
The main issue seems to reside in general discomfort as to the internal management of the CSAC, raised by the three senior councilors themselves, who recently issued criticism of what they describe as “opaque governance” and poor management of public funds under the presidency of Christian Bosembe. A letter addressed to their colleagues and widely disseminated on social networks testifies to their disagreement on the choices made within the institution. This type of dissension is healthy in a democracy, but when criticisms are followed by a closed hearing, this raises disturbing questions about the freedom of expression of governance actors.
### A pressure climate
Observers see this summons, more than a simple hearing, a deterrent operation or even an attempt to muzzle critical voices. The presence of the CNC, an organ attached to the presidency, reinforces this hypothesis. These tensions are not new; They testify to the progressive erosion of the space of dialogue within public institutions. In a country already plagued by political controversies and a climate of distrust, the concerns of the rights of these three advisers take on a particular resonance. The reaction of public opinion and human rights organizations could, in fact, influence the evolution of the situation.
### Comparisons with other contexts
If we compare this situation to other countries, we can note that forced hearings or biased surveys often preceding major political changes, creating a climate of uncertainty. Take for example the case of several African states where dissident voices have been stifled through similar mechanisms, raising international concerns about respecting civil rights. The scenarios which led to the isolation of certain leaders in the face of necessary reforms can reproduce if the corrective are not brought quickly.
### The importance of transparency
Modern democracy is based on a delicate balance between national security, often cited as justification of such actions, and respect for individual rights. The concerns around this hearing must serve as a catalyst to call for institutional reform, with increased demand for transparent governance. Citizens must be able to inquire about the issues that concern them, and this involves a CSAC which fully plays its role as arbiter in the media landscape.
### Conclusion
The hearing of the three CSAC advisers represents more than an isolated incident; It illustrates a deeper crisis within the institutions of regulating democracy. The future of freedom of expression and governance in the country will depend on the choices made in the coming days. Will public opinion be mobilized enough to demand answers, or will this situation be one of the many silences accomplice of a system that struggles to reform? Time will tell us, but the urgency of a reaction is essential to guarantee a climate conducive to democracy and transparency.