6.0. Conclusion The analysis has highlighted various issues that had potential to affect the role of the media in the period under review as well as sentiments and observations of some media practitioners on issues of concern. The rationale of this compilation is the nexus between a good operating environment for the media and the facilitation of democratic governance, access to information and freedom of expression. With regard to access to information, the analysis has shown that there has not been any meaningful progress evidenced by the promissory notes given by government, as well as indication of undertaking nationwide consultations which will further stall the enactment of the Bill. It is clear that the culture of promises and stalling with regard to the Bill (as evidenced by a list of promises adduced from 2011 to date) is still rife and may be a norm with the New dawn administration if no clear roadmap and commitment is given. With regard to media regulation, the analysis has shown that there is a level of consensus with regard to the need for regulation of the practice of journalism given the lack of professionalism and mushrooming of impersonators among many other reasons. There is, however, need to review the process of enactment of the Bill to ensure it is fully representative and does not usher in an era of statutory regulation given the lack of a clear regulatory philosophy, evidenced by the misnomer “statutory-self regulation” which has been the mantra of the Bill. Further, there are concerns on the possibility of an over regulated and stifled profession considering the existence of so many laws that already provide jail terms and punitive financial measures. The Cybercrimes and Cyber Security Act remains an issue of concern given its various provisions that have instilled fear in media practitioners as they frequently conduct their work within the bounds of several offenses defined by the Act. Respondents indicated their fear of the Act, leading to selfcensorship as they are prone to discretionary interception and surveillance under the Act. The Act provides legal opportunity for an oppressive state to 35