A draw, an usher, and a stopwatch on fairness: that was the scene in Brazzaville as Congo’s media regulator settled one of the most sensitive questions of any election. Which candidate speaks first, and which one closes the queue on the public and private airwaves.
On 26 February, the Conseil supérieur de la liberté de communication (CSLC) drew lots to fix the broadcast order of campaign messages from the seven contenders running for the presidency of the Republic of Congo (Congo-Brazzaville).
Why the order of airtime matters in Congo
In a tight media window, sequence is rarely neutral. Going first can frame the day’s conversation. Closing it can leave the final impression. By using a draw rather than a ranking, the regulator removed any suspicion that placement rewarded incumbency or party weight.
The method is deliberately old-fashioned and, for that reason, hard to contest. Slips, a bowl, witnesses, and an officer of the court. No algorithm, no editorial judgement, no room for a candidate to claim the schedule was quietly engineered against them.
How the CSLC draw unfolded in Brazzaville
According to the results announced by the council, broadcasting of the candidates’ messages was set to open with Anguios Nganguia Engambe, standard-bearer of the Parti pour l’action de la République (PAR). His slot would lead the rotation across the public and private outlets.
Next in line came the independent candidate Dave Uphrem Mafoula, followed by Mabio Mavoungou Zinga of the Alliance. The fourth position fell to Mélaine Destin Gavet Elongo of the Mouvement républicain, keeping the smaller formations interleaved with the independents.
The fifth message belonged to independent candidate Vivien Romain Manangou, ahead of Joseph Kignoumbi Kia Mboungou of the party « La Chaîne ». The final slot in the order went to Denis Sassou-N’Guesso, the candidate of the presidential majority.
The exercise was carried out in front of representatives of all seven candidates and media professionals. Crucially, it was certified by a bailiff, Maître Jean-Claude Olombo, whose presence turned a procedural step into a documented, legally witnessed act.
What the regulator said about a level field
CSLC president Médard Milandou Nsonga framed the draw as part of the institution’s core mission. He said the procedure was meant to guarantee equal access to the media for every candidate and to secure balanced, transparent information in line with the laws of the Republic.
He went further than logistics. Nsonga called on the candidates to deliver responsible and constructive messages during their slots, signalling that fairness of access carries an expectation of restraint in tone. The regulator, in other words, was policing both the queue and the conduct.
He also pressed the broadcasters. Media outlets, he insisted, must strictly respect the established order of passage. The warning matters because a fair draw means little if a station later reshuffles slots, trims a candidate’s time, or buries a message in an awkward hour.
A small ritual with large stakes for the campaign
For viewers and listeners, the draw is invisible plumbing. What they experience is simply a rotation of voices on the radio and television they already follow. Behind that routine sits a careful effort to keep the contest from tilting before a single vote is cast.
The transparency on display also speaks to a wider concern across Central Africa, where electoral periods often test the independence of regulators. By inviting candidate representatives and a court officer, the CSLC chose to be seen acting, not merely to act.
The arithmetic of the field is worth holding onto. Seven candidates, ranging from established party figures to independents, each granted a fixed, randomly assigned place in the broadcast schedule. No name was elevated by status, and no name was pushed down the list by it.
The takeaway for Congolese voters and the diaspora
The headline is straightforward. Congo’s communication regulator used a witnessed, bailiff-certified draw to decide who spoke when on the airwaves, treating airtime as a shared public resource rather than a prize to be allocated by influence.
For families, young voters, commuters, and a watchful diaspora, the practical message is reassurance. When the campaign messages rolled out, the order behind them had been set in the open, under rules the candidates could see and a court officer could vouch for.
That is the quiet promise of the procedure. A presidential race can be fiercely contested and still rest on a few shared agreements about fairness. In Brazzaville, the first of those agreements was a slip of paper drawn from a bowl, watched by everyone who had a stake in the result.