by Our Foreign Affairs Editor
In Colombo today, Maldivian officials visiting from Malé convened a press briefing at the High Commission to present the objectives of the recently enacted Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act. Adopted earlier this month following a decisive vote in the People’s Majlis, the legislation has been described by government representatives as ‘a defining step to protect journalists’ rights while strengthening public confidence in media.’ Speaking to the press, Maldivian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka Masood Imad emphasised, “This Act does not restrict freedom of expression; rather, it modernises regulatory structures and establishes clear safeguards for professional and responsible journalism.” Senior officials from the President’s Office and the Attorney General’s Department, joined by ambassador Ahmed Shiaan — who previously served as Maldivian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, the European Union, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and who now heads the Multilateral Affairs Division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Malé — participated in the briefing and stressed that the law consolidates media oversight, removes presidential authority over appointments, and formalises procedures to guarantee the independence and accountability of media institutions across the Maldives.
The delegation aimed to highlight the regional significance of media legislation in South Asia, where issues of oversight, independence and accountability are closely intertwined with democratic development. Yet the law remains a subject of intense debate within the Maldives itself. Advocates describe it as a necessary rationalisation of previously overlapping institutions, while critics view it as an assertive measure by a government with a dominant parliamentary majority, capable of enacting contentious legislation with limited consultation. These conflicting interpretations illustrate the complex environment in which Maldivian journalism now operates: protected from criminal prosecution yet potentially constrained by administrative oversight.
Officials repeatedly stressed the Act’s role in depoliticising media governance. Under the previous framework, executive involvement in appointments to regulatory bodies created potential for political influence over editorial decisions. The President previously retained authority over appointments, and decisions could be perceived as subject to political pressure. The new Media and Broadcasting Commission, by contrast, is entirely independent, composed of seven members—three appointed by Parliament and four elected directly by media practitioners. “Now the President has no authority to control the media,” an official asserted, emphasising that oversight has returned to the media sector itself, rather than remaining subject to political direction.
Crucially, the legislation eliminates criminal penalties for journalists. Under the new provisions, no journalist in the Maldives can face prosecution or imprisonment for reporting, a significant departure from past practices. The Attorney General’s office characterised this as a fundamental safeguard for democratic principles, noting that any disciplinary measures are administrative—ranging from warnings and corrections to proportionate fines—and subject to judicial review. These provisions include the right of journalists to respond to complaints, access legal counsel during proceedings, and appeal decisions in court, thereby embedding a robust framework for due process.
Despite these assurances, opposition voices have been vocal. The most prominent critique came from Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who served as the seventh President of the Maldives from 2018 to 2023. In a statement posted on social media, he described the enactment of the law as “a sad day for democracy.” Solih accused President Mohamed Muizzu of using his party’s parliamentary supermajority to pass the legislation without sufficient consideration of dissenting views from journalists, civil society, or opposition parties. In Solih’s framing, the Act represents a so-called “Media Control Bill,” signalling the perceived erosion of press freedoms. He characterised the process as conducted in an “underhanded manner” and argued that the legislation was an “affront to the people’s will,” emphasising the depth of scepticism among opposition figures who view the law not merely as administrative reform, but as a consolidation of power by the government.
External actors have also expressed attention. The United States embassy in Malé reiterated its commitment to freedom of expression as a fundamental right, urging the Maldives, like all nations, to protect dissenting and opposition voices. While diplomatically measured, such statements underscore the significance of media regulation not only for domestic governance but also for how external partners assess the Maldives’ adherence to democratic norms in the Indian Ocean region.
Journalists themselves have responded strongly. The Maldives Journalists Association warned that the law could “muzzle dissent both online and offline,” suggesting a concentration of regulatory influence that might favour the executive branch. Government representatives countered that the commission’s independence is guaranteed through its composition, explicitly excluding presidential appointments. Nevertheless, the debate reveals persistent mistrust between media practitioners and regulators, shaped by historical experiences of political pressure and selective enforcement.
The provisions of the Act merit careful examination. At its core, it consolidates the Maldives Media Council and the Broadcasting Commission into a single Media and Broadcasting Commission, creating a unified framework intended to reduce administrative duplication and enhance accountability. Its scope encompasses traditional media—newspapers, radio, and television—as well as internet-based platforms, mobile applications, and digital publications. Personal social media accounts used privately are excluded unless employed for systematic news dissemination, delineating private expression from formal journalistic activity.
Ethical standards are comprehensively codified. Chapter Six stipulates obligations such as respect for Islam and constitutional order, protection of children and vulnerable groups, and avoidance of slander or misrepresentation. Journalists are required to distinguish fact from opinion, ensure accuracy, and disclose conflicts of interest. Privacy protections are reinforced: collection of personal data must serve public interest, be securely managed, and be used only for legitimate reporting purposes. The Act also explicitly safeguards the confidentiality of sources, supporting investigative reporting.
To manage disputes, the commission is mandated to convene an adjudication committee empowered to examine alleged breaches. Due process is formalised: media personnel must receive adequate time to respond, have access to legal representation, and see decisions fully reasoned and published. All outcomes are appealable in independent courts, ensuring that the regulatory authority does not act as the final arbiter. Officials emphasised that these mechanisms align Maldives’ approach with international standards, where independent oversight is paired with judicial safeguards.
The removal of criminal liability is particularly noteworthy. International human rights norms increasingly regard imprisonment for reporting or defamation as disproportionate. In this respect, the Maldives has signalled an alignment with liberalising reform. Nevertheless, administrative sanctions remain a form of regulatory leverage. Fines, licence suspensions, or mandatory corrections can influence editorial choices, potentially encouraging caution or self-censorship, especially among smaller outlets with limited capacity. Even a formally independent commission may face pressures in a politically charged environment, highlighting the importance of rigorous implementation.
Government representatives emphasised structural safeguards designed to prevent arbitrary action. With a majority of members elected by media practitioners, the commission cannot be dominated by the executive. Suspensions or revocations of licences require judicial endorsement, ensuring proportionality and fairness. Yet independence on paper does not guarantee independence in practice; the efficacy of these protections will depend on the quality of appointees, the vigilance of parliamentary oversight, and courts’ readiness to adjudicate contested decisions.
Historically, the Act represents a major shift. The Maldives Media Council Act of 2008 and the Broadcasting Act of 2010 established separate entities with occasionally overlapping mandates, creating administrative inefficiencies and ambiguities. Consolidation into a single commission promises consistency, streamlined procedures, and clearer engagement between regulators and media organisations. Critics, however, warn that the merger may reduce institutional pluralism, removing a layer of oversight that previously offered some counterbalance.
The political context further complicates the narrative. The Muizzu administration’s parliamentary supermajority enabled swift passage of the law. While supporters interpret this as decisive governance, opponents argue that rapid enactment curtailed consultation and civil society input. Even with parliamentary debate, perceptions of haste fuel scepticism about the law’s inclusivity and legitimacy.
International comparisons provide perspective. Independent media regulators are common in democratic systems across Europe, Asia, and Africa. Emphasis on due process, appeals, and removal of criminal sanctions aligns Maldives with global norms. Yet even formally independent regulators can be vulnerable to influence, whether through elections, financial leverage, or public pressure. The law’s references to respect for Islam, national security, and public order, while standard in principle, could be interpreted broadly, giving rise to potential sanctions against reporting deemed sensitive.
Thus, the story is neither one of repression nor of unqualified reform. The Act represents a recalibration: an attempt to modernise and rationalise media regulation, providing legal protections and independence while maintaining administrative oversight. The law decriminalises journalistic activity and limits executive influence, but questions remain over the scope of regulatory standards and the practical impact of administrative sanctions.
For journalists operating on the ground, the effects will depend on how the commission applies its mandate, conducts adjudication, and responds to challenges in courts. If implemented with integrity, transparency, and respect for rights, the law could strengthen credibility and public trust. Conversely, expansive interpretations or political pressures could validate sceptics’ concerns.
The Colombo briefing illustrated this duality. Government officials emphasised empowerment rather than restriction, while opposition voices cautioned against potential overreach. Both perspectives carry weight, and the discourse will continue to shape Maldivian media practices in the coming months.
Ultimately, the Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act reflects a broader democratic tension: balancing freedom with responsibility, safeguarding individual rights while maintaining public order, and consolidating institutions without concentrating power. These challenges are not unique to the Maldives, but the nation’s small size and dynamic politics heighten the stakes.
The law is simultaneously a symbol and a measure. It demonstrates the Maldives’ aspiration to modernise governance and align with international standards, while testing whether formal independence can translate into genuine autonomy for media institutions. For the region, it offers a case study in balancing regulation with freedom. For Maldivians, it will shape how news is reported, debated, and preserved as part of the democratic process.
