Laws Restricting Freedoms

The "Protection of National Symbols" Law and its Impact on Freedom of speech in Mauritania

Law No. 2021-021 regarding the protection of national symbols and the criminalization of prejudice to state prestige and the honor of the citizen came into force in December 2021. Since its presentation by the government, the law has sparked a wide wave of controversy and political and human rights debate; while the authorities considered it a means to bridge criminal loopholes and protect civil peace, opponents saw it as a significant setback for liberties.

I. The Impact of the Law on Freedom of the Press and Publishing

The law has had a direct and concerning impact on the environment for journalistic work and digital publishing in Mauritania. The most prominent effects can be summarized as follows:

Decline in International Indicators: Mauritania recorded a significant decline in the World Press Freedom Index according to "Reporters Without Borders," ranking 61st in 2025 after having been in 33rd place a few years ago. This decline is partly attributed to legal interpretations associated with the Symbols Law, which raise fears of restricting journalistic work.
Obstruction of Access to Information: Activists believe that the law obstructs access to news sources and opens the doors to imprisonment and financial fines for journalists who publish information about senior state officials without permission.
Restricting Oversight of Security Apparatuses: Article 5 of the law criminalizes filming or publishing photos of the armed forces and security forces while performing their duties without prior permission. Journalists have considered that this text prevents the documentation of security violations or the suppression of citizens, which limits police accountability.
Creating a State of Self-Censorship: Due to vague language and custodial sentences, journalists and digital content have become hostage to interpretations that might consider any criticism or satirical content a "prejudice to symbols" warranting punishment.

II. Why Does the Opposition Reject It?

Mauritanian opposition forces strongly rejected the law, and their deputies withdrew from the ratification session in protest against its content. The reasons for their rejection include:

Consolidating the Sanctification of the Ruler: The opposition believes that the law returns the country to "eras of the sanctification of individuals" by considering the President of the Republic a national symbol whose criticism is criminalized.
Preventing the Evaluation of Officials' Performance: The "Tawassul" party (the largest opposition party) considered that the law denies citizens' natural right to evaluate the performance of public employees and the management of public affairs.
Using Elastic Language: Opponents criticized loading the law with vague terms such as "prejudice to prestige" and "undermining morale," descriptions which are open to selective and political interpretation against rivals.
Timing and Legislative Process: The opposition was surprised by the insistence on passing the law ahead of a national political dialogue, and considered the speed of its referral to parliament and the bypassing of deputies' amendments as a premeditated intention to undermine democratic gains.

III. Position of Human Rights Organizations

Local and international human rights organizations (such as "Access Now" and "Article 19") classified the law as a serious threat to freedom of expression. Their objections are based on the following:

Violation of International Standards: The text contains articles that conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Mauritania signed, particularly regarding the protection of public figures from criticism.
Harsh Penalties: The law included prison sentences of up to five years and heavy financial fines for acts related to opinion and expression, which is rejected by organizations calling for the abolition of custodial penalties in publishing cases.
Imbalance Between Privacy and Public Interest: The law criminalizes the publication of secrets of public employees without distinguishing between their private lives and issues of corruption or abuse of power that concern the public.
Discrimination Between Citizens: Legal experts believe that the legislation created distinct categories, granting special protection to the President and officials, while leaving ordinary citizens to general rules, which violates the principle of equality before the law.

Conclusion: While the government defends the law as a tool to fight the "trivialization of liberties" and hate speech on social media, the human rights and opposition consensus remains that the law represents a structural threat to democratic practice and requires review to ensure a balance between state prestige and freedom of expression