Media Regulation Bill: Blunting the Pen That Speaks Truth

Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, recently submitted to the Parliament by independent MP Abdul Hannan AbuBakuru, and backed by the ruling People’s National Congress, represents a significant and highly contentious legislative proposal with significant implications for the future of press freedom and democracy in the country.

Maldives Media Council, Maldives Journalists Association, along with various media outlets and several international press freedom organizations, have opposed the bill and called for its withdrawal. They argue that its provisions are not designed to foster a more accountable media but rather to centralize control of the press under the government and the ruling party, thereby threatening existing constitutional protections for freedom of expression and journalism.

The bill was accepted to parliament in an extraordinary sitting held on August 27 while parliament is officially in recess. The bill was accepted through votes in favour from 49 MPs of ruling PNC, with only 12 MPs voting against.

The bill has been forwarded to the Independent Institutions Committee for review, which has announced that it will be accepting comments from the public. The committee is also set to meet with media representatives on Monday to discuss their concerns regarding the bill.

The bill seeks to dissolve the existing Maldives Media Council (MMC) and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (BroadCom), merging their functions into a new, consolidated entity; Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission.

The current media landscape in Maldives is regulated by two primary bodies, which include Maldives Media Council, overseeing print and online media, and Maldives Broadcasting Commission (BroadCom), which regulates broadcast media. MJA operates as a professional body representing journalists. This system, while not without its own challenges, has historically provided a degree of separation and self-regulation.

Notably, this is not the first attempt to introduce such legislation. A similar bill, tabled by the same MP last year, was withdrawn on November 19, 2024 following strong public backlash and opposition from media bodies. The bill was withdrawn after the first hearing, while it was scheduled for preliminary debate. MP Hannan had previously said that he is withdrawing the bill because President Dr Mohamed Muizzu announced that the bill stands against his policies.

The core of the bill lies in its proposal to establish a new regulatory body with sweeping powers, replacing the current system with a single, consolidated commission. The structure and powers of the proposed Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission have drawn the most significant criticism.

The bill proposes a seven-member commission, with the President having the power to appoint three of these members with Parliament approval. The remaining four members would be elected by the media. The authority to appoint the Chair of the committee is also placed on the President

The bill states that journalists who breach ethical standards set by the commission stand to face significant fines, and revocation of the media outlets registry. Individual journalists can face fines of between MVR 5,000 to MVR 25,000, while the outlets can be fined up to MVR 100,000.

Another provision grants the Parliament powers to dismiss the elected members of the Commission composition. This is seen as a direct way for the executive and the political party holding parliament majority, at present the ruling party, to exert total control over the media's regulatory body.

The bill also states that journalists must adhere to ethical standards that include "promoting the principles of upholding an elected government." Such ambiguous language could be selectively used to target outlets critical of the government or to stifle investigative reporting on sensitive issues including, but not limited to, corruption.

One of the main grievances of the media community is that the bill was drafted without any consultation with journalists, their unions, or media outlets. This lack of consultation stands in direct contrast to earlier promises from the Attorney General to involve the media community in drafting any such legislation.

By dissolving the independent Maldives Media Council and placing regulatory authority under a government-controlled body, the bill would dismantle the current system of self-regulation and replace it with direct state control. This would inevitably lead to a drastic decline in the Maldives' standing on international press freedom indices.

Even at present, Maldives is ranked 111th out of 180 countries on the 2023 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). This indicates a significant drop from Maldives’ 2021 ranking as the 72nd. Ratification of this bill would only see Maldives sinking far lower on the index.

The threat of harsh financial penalties, suspension of operations, and the potential for a government-appointed commission to cancel a media outlet's registration would likely cause journalists and media outlets to self-censor to avoid repercussions, particularly on sensitive topics such as corruption, abuse of power, and human rights issues. This would severely diminish the media's ability to act as a watchdog on those in power.

By restricting the ability of journalists to investigate and report on matters of public interest, the bill would compromise accountability and transparency, creating an environment where corruption and misconduct could go unchecked.

The bill is seen by many as a regressive step that would roll back the hard-won democratic progress of the past decade, with the opposition stating that the bill is an attempt to dismantle media freedom.

The timing of the bill's submission, during an extraordinary parliamentary sitting has also raised concerns, with critics suggesting a deliberate attempt to expedite its passage without adequate public scrutiny.

Maldives Media Council and Maldives Journalists Association have released statements opposing the bill and calling for its withdrawal, stating that the bill would seriously infringe on the constitutional right to freedom of the press and other related rights. Journalists and other media personnel have also begun signing a petition against the bill. They have stated their willingness to engage in proper discussions for genuine media reform but believe this bill is not the vehicle for it.

Journalists had staged protests as the bill was placed on the agenda for the Parliament’s extraordinary sitting held yesterday. Journalists had initially gathered outside the Parliament once the sitting commenced, expressing their discontent with the bill. Once the Parliament had voted to accept the bill, demonstrators moved to protest outside the President’ Office, where they met with police obstruction, with some being forced away from the area and others being briefly detained in police vehicles before being released. Media personnel later assembled outside the presidential palace, calling for the bill to be rejected and urging President Mohamed Muizzu to meet with the press.

Responding to the continued protests and opposition to the bill by the media, President Dr Mohamed Muizzu met with the MJA and some senior journalists on Thursday.

He boldly claimed that this government is ‘100% pro-media’ but failed to agree to have the bill withdrawn. In a subsequent press conference held at the President’s Office, Attorney General Ahmed Usham also declared he saw ‘no reason to withdraw the bill’, saying any necessary amendments can be brought during the committee stage.

The President stated that he does not wish for himself, or the government, to hold any authority over the proposed media regulation commission. He stated that he neither wishes to hold the authority to appoint members nor Chief of the commission.

Communications Minister Ibrahim Khaleel and Youth Minister Ibrahim Waheed (Asward) also met with journalists today where they conceded that the bill is in need of amendments. However, they maintained that it is necessary to merge the existing bodies and replace them with the regulatory commission.

Those in favour of the bill, largely affiliated with the ruling party, argue that it is necessary to address the perceived shortcomings and functional overlaps of the existing regulatory bodies and to ensure media accountability. Some members of the ruling People's National Congress (PNC) have stated that a legislation is necessary to hold the media accountable for what they describe as a failure to address cases related to infringing on reputation.

However, this rationale has been widely rejected by journalists who see it as a pretext to impose government control.

The bill’s ambiguous language creates dangerous loopholes that any administration could exploit, threatening to erode the fragile press freedoms that the Maldives has only been able to experience for less than two decades.