Julian Assange And The Global War On Journalism

In June 2024, after over a decade of legal warfare, Julian Assange walked free.

The WikiLeaks founder entered a plea deal with the United States, avoiding further imprisonment by accepting one count under the Espionage Act in exchange for time served. But far from closing the chapter, his release has only intensified global debate on the future of journalism.

Assange’s journey from digital insurgent to diplomatic prisoner has come to symbolise a far reaching erosion of press freedom in both authoritarian and democratic states. His case, much like a baobab tree in a windstorm, stands rooted in principle yet battered by the changing political winds.

Why Assange’s Story Still Matters In 2025

Assange’s release did not absolve the broader legal questions his case raised. Can journalists be prosecuted for publishing truthful information? Can non US citizens be charged under U.S. secrecy laws? And who gets to decide what the public deserves to know?

These questions are not abstract; they have become global litmus tests. From Gaza to Guatemala, Kabul to Kampala, journalists continue to face state led reprisals for exposing wrongdoing.

Dr Zainab El-Khalifa, a legal analyst at the African Centre for Media Studies, noted:

“Assange’s plea deal may have spared him prison, but it legitimised the use of espionage laws against journalists worldwide.”

The Platform That Shook Empires

WikiLeaks was launched in 2006 to challenge opacity with radical transparency. In 2010, it published U.S. diplomatic cables and classified military documents, exposing war crimes in Iraq, mass surveillance programs, and diplomatic meddling across continents.

For Africa, the cables revealed CIA links to political elites in Nigeria, lobbying against South Africa’s stance on Iran, and pressure on Uganda over its anti-homosexuality bill, insights long buried beneath the surface of diplomatic statements.

• Nigeria: WikiLeaks cables revealed Shell executives boasting of infiltrating the Nigerian government, with access to “every ministry of importance.” They also exposed CIA networks operating through political elites, underscoring the deep entanglement of foreign corporate and intelligence power in Africa’s largest oil producer.
• Kenya: The disclosures uncovered high-level corruption and evidence of U.S. interference in Kenya’s 2007 elections, raising questions about Washington’s selective promotion of democracy. The cables also detailed behind-the-scenes manoeuvring on Kenya’s anti-terror laws.
• Uganda: U.S. diplomatic cables showed pressure on Kampala over its controversial anti-homosexuality legislation, linking American aid and diplomatic engagement to Uganda’s human rights record. At the same time, WikiLeaks exposed state abuses tied to Uganda’s role in regional peacekeeping missions.
• South Africa: Leaked cables revealed Washington’s lobbying against Pretoria’s independent foreign policy stance, particularly its opposition to sanctions on Iran. The disclosures highlighted the limits of South Africa’s sovereignty in an era of global power plays.
• Libya: Documents disclosed Western complicity in arming Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, despite public sanctions. These revelations illustrated the duplicity of Western foreign policy in North Africa, where proclaimed support for democracy coexisted with covert deals sustaining authoritarianism.

A New Frontier In Journalism

WikiLeaks was not a traditional newsroom. It didn’t sanitise documents or negotiate with governments before publishing. It made raw data public, forcing readers and analysts to engage directly with the truth.

This model disrupted the gatekeeping role of legacy media. It also exposed the double standards in journalistic immunity. While The New York Times and The Guardian published the same cables, Assange, lacking corporate insulation, became the scapegoat.

In the words of Zimbabwean investigative journalist Tendai Mafunda:

“WikiLeaks broke the illusion that only Western institutions can define responsible journalism. It handed the megaphone to the world.”

A Dangerous Legal Precedent

Although Assange is free, the U.S. government’s invocation of the Espionage Act against a non-citizen for publishing leaks abroad has cracked open a precedent with chilling global resonance. For the first time, journalism itself, not just the act of leaking, was criminalised beyond national borders.

Legal scholars describe this as “jurisdictional imperialism.” If Washington can extend its secrecy laws to foreign publishers, why would Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, or Addis Ababa hesitate to do the same? Already, echoes are visible.

In July 2025, Vietnam cited “foreign interference” to convict bloggers who reposted declassified defence reports sourced from European NGOs. In Ethiopia, once hailed for reform, the government detained journalists covering peace talks by invoking national security laws strikingly similar to U.S. justifications. These cases are not coincidences but signs of a shifting legal landscape where states borrow tactics from one another, normalising repression under the veil of legitimacy.

The danger lies in the precedent’s mimicry effect: by lowering the bar, Washington inadvertently hands authoritarian and transitional regimes alike a ready-made legal toolkit to silence dissent.

As South African legal analyst Nomsa Khumalo stated,

“Once the U.S. made espionage charges fair game against Assange, every government gained licence to criminalise truth under the same logic.”

This expanding web of extraterritoriality matters deeply for Africa. The continent’s legal systems, often a patchwork of colonial statutes and modern cybercrime laws, are fertile ground for copycat legislation. Without robust continental safeguards, a Nigerian, Kenyan, or Zimbabwean journalist exposing leaked contracts tomorrow could be prosecuted under laws inspired by Washington’s handling of Assange.

The Selective Shield Of The West

Assange’s treatment contrasted sharply with that of institutional outlets. Major Western publications walked away unscathed. Their institutional power served as a firewall.

“We face two classes of journalism: those protected by the prestige of their mastheads, and those exposed by their independence,”

Said Prof. Guy Mbayo, media sociologist at Makerere University.

This two-tiered system has emboldened states to target lone journalists and whistleblowers, knowing full well the West often reserves outrage for its own.

A Deadly Year For Journalists

In 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), nearly 70 per cent of all journalist deaths occurred in Israeli military operations. Afghanistan and Mexico followed closely. Somalia was the only African country to appear on the top danger list.

This data sharply rebuts narratives that cast Africa as a unique danger zone for journalists. Repression is global, not geographically exceptional.

Even so, African journalists remain at risk from exile to imprisonment, not because Africa is uniquely oppressive, but because global norms increasingly permit such repression to go unchecked.

Assange As A Global Metaphor

Though Assange’s ordeal began in the Global North, it has become symbolic in the Global South. His story resonates with African journalists navigating shrinking civic spaces and expanding surveillance.

In Senegal, editor Cheikh Faye was prosecuted in 2024 for leaking judicial corruption records. In Angola, journalist João Mavinga fled into exile after exposing ties between military generals and diamond exports. Neither case drew sustained Western attention.

“Assange is no longer a person. He’s a proxy a test of who gets to publish the truth and survive,”

Said Ghanaian journalist Ama Bonsu.

Assange’s seven-year asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy ended in 2019 when a change in leadership revoked his protection. His 2024 plea deal ended the physical ordeal, but his symbolic detention continues.

The diplomatic dance that led to his freedom was less about justice than realpolitik. Ecuador sought IMF deals. Australia sought quiet repatriation. The UK sought closure. Each government prioritised interests over press principles.

Africa must not outsource the defence of truth to distant capitals. Pan-African media coalitions, legal defence funds, and encrypted digital platforms are now essential, not optional.

The African Union’s 2019 “Framework on Safety of Journalists” has yet to be ratified by half its member states. Without binding regional protection, individual journalists remain vulnerable.

“We need our own version of the First Amendment Africanised, enforceable, and beyond symbolism,”

Said Nigerian press lawyer Gloria Otokiti.

Beyond Heroes: Structural Change

Assange is not a lone crusader to be lionised; he is a cautionary parable—his persecution and eventual release signal that journalism cannot depend on individual heroism alone. Just as one rainmaker cannot bring a season’s harvest, African media cannot survive on bravery in isolation.

To secure resilience, investigative journalism requires institutional scaffolding. That means legal muscle: enforceable protections codified at both domestic and continental levels. It demands economic fortification: funding models insulated from state capture and oligarchic patronage. And it requires diplomatic shielding: regional blocs like the AU and ECOWAS treating attacks on journalists as breaches of collective sovereignty.

Globally, press ecosystems that thrive, such as in Scandinavia or parts of Latin America, do so not because their journalists are braver, but because their frameworks are stronger. Africa must move beyond episodic outcries whenever a journalist is jailed or killed, and instead build enduring defence mechanisms that operate regardless of political cycles.

As Kenyan editor Nyasha Okoro observed at the 2025 African Investigative Journalism Conference: “Courage wins headlines, but structures sustain truth.”

What To Watch Next

The trajectory of press freedom after Assange’s release will be shaped less by personalities and more by systems. Several critical developments demand close monitoring in 2025:

• Global Legal Reform Efforts: UNESCO and CPJ are coordinating frameworks to restrict the extraterritorial use of espionage laws. If successful, this could reverse the dangerous precedent set by Assange’s prosecution.
• African Union Commitments: The AU Commission is scheduled to review binding treaty obligations on freedom of expression in Q4 2025. Whether member states transform rhetoric into enforcement will be a decisive litmus test.
• Technological Frontiers: The growth of encrypted whistleblower platforms tailored for African contexts could recalibrate the balance of power between journalists and states. Blockchain-backed leak platforms are already being piloted in Kenya and South Africa.
• Judicial Training And Capacity-Building: Courts across Africa remain the first and often last line of defence for journalists. Expanding judicial education on balancing national security with public interest reporting will determine whether judges become bulwarks or weak links in the fight for media freedom.

A Global Truth, A Local Struggle

Julian Assange may no longer be behind bars, but the system that jailed him remains untouched. His release is not the end of a chapter but the beginning of a new contest one fought not only in Washington or London, but in Abuja, Accra, and Addis Ababa.

As Tanzanian editor Baraka Mwakyembe aptly put it in July 2025:

“If journalism is a mirror to power, then WikiLeaks cracked the glass. What happens next depends on who dares to look.”