Press freedom in Moldova: Amnesty and API hold divergent opinions
The media in the Republic of Moldova is experiencing heightened political pressure, vague legislation, and sanctions that are not applied transparently, according to a report by Amnesty International (AI) Moldova. The report concludes that the media's vulnerability is on the rise; however, the Independent Press Association (API) disagrees, arguing that the authors have exaggerated the situation by presenting individual cases as if they represent a national trend.
The Executive Director of Amnesty International Moldova, Veaceslav Tofan, stated during the “Public Space” program on Radio Moldova that the fragility of the mass media is largely due to an ambiguous regulatory framework and politicians' attempts to influence editorial policies. He particularly highlighted the situation in Gagauzia, where politicians frequently attack journalists.
“As for the Transnistrian region—the part of the Republic of Moldova occupied by the Russian Federation—the report finds that freedom of expression practically does not exist. Journalists are unable to perform their duties as they should in a free and democratic society,” Tofan emphasized.
A critical aspect of the report addresses the suspension of licenses for some media institutions and the lack of judicial oversight regarding these decisions. Tofan remarked, “Such a decision must pass a triple test of legality, proportionality, and necessity. In this case, we believe that this filter was not applied, and some decisions to suspend licenses were disproportionate.”
In contrast, Petru Macovei, the executive director of the Independent Press Association, rejected the notion of widespread political pressure on the press at the national level, stating, “I do not think that in 2025 we can talk about political pressure on the media in the Republic of Moldova, except in the Gagauz region. The authors of the report exaggerated when they described it as a national phenomenon.”
Macovei acknowledged the press's fragility as an ongoing reality, mainly driven by a weak economy. He argued that self-censorship is not a significant issue in the Republic of Moldova. Regarding the suspension of media licenses, he believes the decisions were justified, though not always proportionate or clearly communicated. “There are problems, but, in general, I do not agree with the conclusion that we are witnessing an increase in the vulnerability of the media in the Republic of Moldova,” Macovei stated.
Macovei also pointed out that the companies that lost their broadcasting licenses were not genuine media outlets but rather entities involved in money laundering, including those linked to the Shor criminal group. He declared, “They were nothing but Kremlin propaganda platforms.”
Cristina Snegur, a program coordinator at AI Moldova, emphasized the need for judicial oversight of decisions to suspend or withdraw licenses. “However, there is no greater guarantee for freedom of expression than a court decision that thoroughly analyzes all aspects related to the alleged violations of the law,” she noted.
The participants also discussed the risks of disinformation, dependence on external funding, the situation in the separatist region, and the necessity for a national strategy for media pluralism.
