The comments were made during the parliamentary debate on the proposed Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, a ruling party-backed legislation that has drawn sharp criticism from journalists and the public.
Media advocacy groups, human rights watchdogs, trade unions and journalist representative bodies have collectively condemned a proposed Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill as a grave threat to democracy, press freedom, and the public’s right to know. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joins its affiliate, the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), in calling on the government to urgently withdraw the Bill to allow an inclusive, transparent consultation with journalists, unions, and media outlets.
A joint letter signed by 21 organisations was presented to President Muizzu on August 28 by the MJA. Its co-signatories included the IFJ, Human Rights Watch, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Human Rights Watch, Transparency Maldives, Internews, and Centre for Law and Democracy. In the letter, the signatories said the proposed Bill would grant excessive control over the country’s news and broadcasting sector to a new ‘Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission’, replacing the existing Maldives Media Council (MMC) and Maldives Broadcasting Commission (BroadCom).
But the joint statement critically highlighted that the proposed Bill was contrary to President Muizzu’s own personal commitment to the introduction of a self-regulatory, independent framework for the media. The proposed Commission would instead create a super media regulator, with “sweeping powers” including the authority to suspend media outlets during investigations, block newspaper websites, and halt broadcasts.
“Regulating the media requires genuine consultation with the media industry and other stakeholders and engagement and bypassing such engagement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the ultimate purpose of such a body, that is to strengthen journalism and safeguard democracy and press freedom,” said the joint letter.
The MJA said the Bill, introduced by MP Abdul Hannan Abubakr, was drafted without consultation with journalists, unions and media outlets, and had the involvement of senior parliamentary figures despite being formally submitted by an independent member. Among its many concerning elements, the Bill proposes that the seven-member Commission would comprise three presidential appointees and a chair appointed by the President, alongside provisions allowing parliamentary no-confidence removal of members nominated by media outlets.
The Bill also includes the introduction of severe fines for journalists, between MVR 5,000 and 25,000, and media outlets, up to MVR 100,000, for non-compliance with currently undrafted Commission rules, and allows the commission to suspend media registrations during any investigations, block media websites, and halt broadcasts.
On August 27, despite widespread condemnation from press freedom and journalist representative groups in the country and industry protests, the Maldivian parliament fast-tracked the legislation through preliminary debate and accepted the Bill. It is now with a committee for further work before returning to the parliament floor.
The MJA protested during the debate and its consequent vote outside the People’s Majlis, with concurrent protests outside the President's Office and his official residence. Six journalists were briefly detained and taken into police vehicles before being released, according to verified video footage from the protest. Police officially denied that any journalists were arrested.
During the debate, MJA noted a number of attempts to discredit journalists by members of the ruling People’s National Congress (PNC) party, with Parliament Majority Leader Ibrahim Falah calling for journalists to be “impaled”, a form of violent execution. MJA condemned the call as “direct and dangerous incitement of violence against journalists and media outlets in the Maldives.”
The IFJ said:“This Bill, if introduced, will pose a significant danger to both democracy and press freedom in the Maldives and should be immediately withdrawn. We strongly advise that the president should heed the significant concerns of the Maldivian media, which is strongly supported by both national and international defenders of human rights, media independence and democracy. Now is the time for the government to move toward to a more progressive consultation with the media – and for the benefit of all Maldivians.”