Date: August 6, 2026
By Kimberly Wilson
DAKAR, Senegal — A court in Senegal has sentenced three TikTok influencers to prison for insulting President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, in a ruling that has sparked criticism from free speech advocates who argue the convictions represent a setback for freedom of expression in the West African nation.
The three influencers—Mandoumbe Diop, widely known as Lamignou Darou, Magueye Diaw (known as Oustaz Thiep), and Moustapha Ndiaye (known as Ndiaye Touba) were convicted after posting videos on TikTok that authorities said insulted the head of state.
According to the court's ruling, Mandoumbe Diop, who has more than 500,000 TikTok followers, received a three-month prison sentence without suspension. His videos regularly attracted tens of thousands of views on the social media platform.
The other two defendants, Magueye Diaw and Moustapha Ndiaye, were each sentenced to two months in prison without parole. In addition to the jail terms, the court imposed fines of 500,000 CFA francs (about US$800) on both men.
The influencers' lawyer, Abdy Nar Ndiaye, criticized the ruling, arguing that the videos were intended as comedy and satire rather than criminal insults. He said the content should not have resulted in prison sentences and maintained that the punishment was disproportionate.
The convictions have drawn criticism from digital rights advocates, who say the case raises concerns about the protection of free speech and online expression in Senegal. Critics argue that criminal penalties for insulting public officials can discourage open political debate and suppress legitimate criticism of government leaders.
Neither Feenal Digital, the media organization that reported on the court proceedings, nor a spokesperson for the Senegalese government immediately responded to Reuters' requests for comment following the verdict.
The case comes as Senegal continues to balance efforts to regulate online content with constitutional protections for freedom of expression. Human rights observers say the ruling is likely to intensify debate over whether criminal defamation and insult laws should continue to apply to content published on social media platforms.