Controversial Media Bill Passed in Maldives Sparks Outcry

The passing of a contentious media bill in the Maldives has triggered widespread condemnation from journalists, opposition parties, and civil society groups. Critics argue that the legislation poses a significant threat to press freedom and free speech, while the government maintains that it aims to establish a regulatory framework to address misinformation and uphold constitutional rights.

Legislative Context

The Maldives, an island nation with a population of approximately 500,000, has a tumultuous political history, having transitioned from 30 years of autocratic rule to a democratic system in 2008. The recent media bill, known as the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, comes on the heels of significant political events, including an overhaul of the country’s Supreme Court by President Mohamed Muizzu’s allies in parliament. This overhaul involved the suspension of one judge and the dismissal of two others, raising concerns about the judiciary’s independence.

Concerns Over Press Freedom

Former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih has been vocal in his criticism of the new media bill, stating that it represents the “end of press freedom in the Maldives.” He highlighted the manner in which the bill was pushed through parliament, despite protests from various sectors of society, as indicative of the current government’s disregard for democratic rights. Solih’s comments reflect a broader sentiment among critics who see the bill as an attempt to stifle dissent and control the media landscape.

Ahmed Naaif, the secretary general of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), described the legislation as “draconian,” asserting that it seeks to suppress dissent both online and offline. The bill’s provisions extend to electronic media, placing those who publish content online at risk of penalties similar to those faced by traditional media outlets.

Government’s Defense

In defense of the bill, Foreign Minister Abdulla Khaleel stated that personal social media accounts used privately would not be regulated under the new legislation. He emphasized that the bill aims to create “clear standards and a code of conduct” for media operations, addressing challenges related to misinformation and content manipulation. Minister of Youth Ibrahim Waheed, a former journalist, reiterated that the bill targets registered media outlets, suggesting that young content creators on social media would not be affected.

Despite these assurances, critics argue that the bill effectively places media under government control, as the ruling party, the People’s National Congress (PNC), holds a supermajority in parliament. Naaif expressed concern that the legislation would penalize journalists for their coverage rather than protect their rights.

Political Reactions

The United States Embassy in the Maldives responded to the bill’s passage by urging the Muizzu administration to uphold freedom of expression, including the rights of dissenting voices. In addition, the Bar Council of the Maldives (BCM), representing the legal profession, called on the president to reconsider enacting the legislation, citing concerns about its alignment with constitutional principles.

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) condemned the bill, labeling it a “sad day for democracy” and calling for public protests against what they termed a “draconian control bill.” Former Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid echoed these sentiments, asserting that the government had “declared war on free speech” rather than addressing the pressing issues facing the nation.

The Bill’s Provisions

The approved media bill establishes a commission composed of seven members, with three appointed by parliament and four elected by registered media groups. However, all members of the commission can be dismissed by parliament, raising concerns about its independence. The commission is granted extensive powers, including the authority to fine, suspend, and shut down news outlets for coverage deemed contrary to religious norms, national security, or public order.

The initial draft of the bill had proposed that the president appoint three members of the commission, but this provision was altered in response to public outcry. Nevertheless, the current structure still raises alarms among advocates for press freedom, who fear that the government could exert undue influence over media operations.

International Concerns

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has expressed deep concern over the implications of the bill, stating that it undermines the work of independent journalists and places the media under government control. The organization, along with various local and international groups, has called for President Muizzu to veto the legislation and uphold his commitment to protecting media freedom.

Conclusion

The passage of the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill has ignited a fierce debate about the future of free speech and press freedom in the Maldives. As various stakeholders mobilize to challenge the legislation, the potential for renewed political turmoil looms over the nation, which has struggled to consolidate its democracy in the years since its transition from autocracy.

Key Facts

– The Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill was passed by the Maldivian parliament, which is controlled by President Mohamed Muizzu’s party, the PNC.
– Critics, including former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, argue that the bill threatens press freedom and free speech.
– The legislation establishes a commission with powers to regulate both traditional and electronic media, raising concerns about government control.
– The United States Embassy and the Bar Council of the Maldives have urged the government to reconsider the bill.
– The MJA and other organizations have vowed to defy the bill and mobilize public protests against it.

Source: www.aljazeera.com