Some words describe. Others explain. And some, in trying to sum up a history, end up confining a man to a past that time, institutions and events have nevertheless transformed.

This is precisely the issue raised by France 24's use of the term "putschist" to describe the President of the Republic of Guinea, Mamadi Doumbouya, while he was on an official visit to Côte d'Ivoire.

Our purpose is not to rewrite history. September 5, 2021 happened. Mamadi Doumbouya came to power following the overthrow of President Alpha Condé. For several years, Guinean, African and international media reported on that event, analyzed it, commented on it and criticized it. They were fully within their role.

But history does not stop on the day it begins.

Five years have passed since 2021. Guinea went through a transition, adopted a new Constitution, held a presidential election and returned to constitutional order. Mamadi Doumbouya was elected President of the Republic and sworn into office. The African Union itself officially acknowledged Guinea's return to constitutional order.

These, too, are facts.

And journalism, when it seeks to shed light on the present, cannot select from history only the event that sustains a label while overlooking everything that followed.

2021 belongs to history; we are in 2026

This is where our disagreement with France 24 lies.

To say, in a historical analysis, that Mamadi Doumbouya came to power on September 5, 2021 following a coup d'état is a factual reminder.

But to present him, five years later, during an official visit to President Alassane Ouattara, under the label of a "putschist president" is an editorial choice of a different nature.

What, precisely, was taking place in Côte d'Ivoire?

The President of the Republic of Guinea was being received by the President of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. Two heads of state were meeting. Two neighboring countries were in dialogue. Two sovereign states were conducting their diplomatic relations.

In that context, the most natural wording was also the simplest:

"The President of the Republic of Guinea, Mamadi Doumbouya, on an official visit to Côte d'Ivoire."

Why, then, was it necessary to add "putschist"? What does that label tell us about the purpose of the visit? How does it help us better understand relations between Conakry and Abidjan? What essential information does it provide viewers about the meeting between the two heads of state?

These are legitimate questions.

When a word ceases to enlighten

France 24 remains free to recall the Guinean President's past. No one should deny it that right.

But journalistic freedom does not abolish editorial responsibility.

When an event several years old becomes a label attached to a man despite the constitutional and institutional developments that have taken place since, one is no longer merely recalling history: one is choosing to view the present exclusively through the prism of the past.

And that choice has an effect. It freezes a man at one moment in his journey. It pushes into the background the transformations that have occurred since. It can also give a diplomatic news item a disparaging tone that was not necessary to understand it.

We do not claim to know the intentions of France 24's editorial team. That would be intellectually imprudent. We do, however, have the right to question its choice of words.

Is it still contextualization when the context itself has profoundly changed?

That is the heart of the matter.

Respect for a head of state is also respect for the institution he represents

We must go further.

A head of state on an official visit does not represent only himself. He represents a country, its institutions and, beyond them, a national community.

Criticism of Mamadi Doumbouya is entirely legitimate. But the presidential office he holds belongs to the Republic of Guinea.

That is why the choice of words matters so much here.

When the Guinean President is officially received by his Ivorian counterpart, institutional respect is neither a personal favor nor political complacency. It is part of the ordinary conventions governing relations between sovereign states.

Nor should this requirement be confused with an attempt to shield African leaders from critical scrutiny by the press. It simply means that when reporting on official relations between states, journalism must know how to distinguish criticism of a man from the way it characterizes the office he embodies.

And if the situation were reversed?

The question deserves to be asked without unnecessary polemics.

Imagine a major African public broadcaster covering an official visit by a French president to an African capital. Imagine that, instead of first presenting him as President of the French Republic, the broadcaster systematically attached to him a label drawn from a political crisis, a judicial affair or a controversial episode in his country's recent history.

Would that be regarded as simple contextualization? Or would the African broadcaster be accused of turning diplomatic reporting into editorial judgment?

Why should the standards be different when the leader concerned is African?

The issue is not a privilege that Africa is demanding. It is reciprocity.

Respect between sovereign states also requires that the same standards of precision, context and restraint be applied to everyone.

Africa is asking for no complacency

Let us be perfectly clear.

We are not asking France 24 to remain silent about Guinea.

Let it investigate. Let it analyze governance. Let it examine President Mamadi Doumbouya's record. Let it question his decisions. Let it give a voice both to those who support him and to those who oppose him. Let it examine civil liberties, the economy, institutions, opposition rights and government action.

And when the journalistic context requires it, let it recall September 5, 2021.

That is the work of a free press.

But a free press is stronger when it remains precise. It distinguishes between recalling a historical event and permanently labeling a public figure. Above all, it understands that words are never without consequence when the speaker has an international audience.

France 24 is not just any media outlet. Its reputation, audience and presence across the African continent give it considerable influence.

And influence creates responsibility. The farther a message travels, the more carefully each word must be weighed.

Africa also has the right to respond

This controversy also reveals a deeper transformation.

For a long time, Africa was largely narrated from outside. Its crises were interpreted elsewhere, its political trajectories commented on elsewhere, and its leaders described through analytical frameworks that were not always produced on the continent.

That era is changing.

Africa has its own media, researchers, academics, intellectuals and public opinions. It is perfectly capable of hearing criticism, but also of questioning those who speak about it.

Responding to France 24 is not opposing France. Challenging an editorial choice of words is not fighting press freedom. It is exercising that same freedom.

Intellectual sovereignty also means being able to say to a major international media outlet:

"We listen to you. We respect your freedom to report. But we also have the right to discuss the words with which you tell our history and describe our institutions."

That is what an adult relationship between Africa and the international media should be: neither complacency nor hostility, but debate, rigor and respect.

The past deserves remembrance; the present demands precision

France 24 may recall 2021. But it must also look at 2026.

Mamadi Doumbouya may be criticized like any head of state. His record belongs in public debate. His decisions may be challenged. The circumstances of his initial accession to power are part of history and may be recalled.

But when he is officially received by the President of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, there is a present institutional reality that can be named without ambiguity:

Mr. Mamadi Doumbouya, President of the Republic of Guinea.

Nothing in that designation erases September 5, 2021. It simply recognizes that history did not stop on that day.

Five years have passed. Institutions have evolved. A constitutional and electoral process has taken place. Today's Guinea must be described in its present reality.

Africa asks for neither favors nor indulgence.

It simply asks that the same standards of precision, contextualization and respect that every major international media outlet claims when speaking about the rest of the world also be applied to Africa, its institutions and its leaders.

For freedom of the press gives the right to recount the past and question the present. It reaches its highest standard when the power of words remains equal to the respect owed to facts, institutions and peoples.

Amine Michel
Founding President - Editorial Director