"Throw it out": journalists deliver unified rejection of media regulation bill

The proposed law would create a new seven-member regulatory body with powers to fine, investigate and shut down media outlets. The watchdog could block news websites, halt broadcasts and revoke registration during investigation of complaints. Individual journalists could be fined up to MVR 25,000 (US$ 1,620). Fines of up to MVR 100,000 could be imposed on media outlets for non-compliance or violations of ethical standards.

Appearing before the committee reviewing the bill, journalists laid out a comprehensive case against it. The ruling party's majority on the committee framed the session as consultation on revisions. But the journalists made it clear they saw nothing worth salvaging in legislation they considered fundamentally flawed in its conception.

Citing concerns about potential political interference, Mahath opposed having the president appoint three of the commission's seven members and allowing parliament to dismiss the four members elected by the media. She proposed a two-tiered process where the commission would first conduct an internal no-confidence vote, which would be followed by parliamentary review. 

While the bill mandates monthly commission meetings, Mahath recommended a shorter timeframe for attending to complaints, such as 48 hours upon submission. “This is because we believe there is a chance for the case to be dragged on for a month,” she said. 

She objected to language in some provisions that require broadcasters to support the "lawful government." She also flagged vague provisions that prohibit airing content deemed "definitely or possibly false," asking for clarity on whether this applies to political rallies or other contexts. She cited Sangu TV's fine in 2018 under the repealed defamation law over remarks made by an MP during a live rally. She questioned how control rooms could immediately determine the truth or falsehood of political rhetoric, emphasising that media should not be held responsible for third-party statements. 

The proposed fines of up to MVR 25,000 was excessive in light of the media industry's low pay, she said. 

The veteran editor argued that the bill contradicts the Maldives' pluralistic and multi-party democratic system by prohibiting the promotion of certain ideologies. But the bill doesn't clarify who would determine what constitutes a "specific ideology." 

He opposed merging the Media Council and the Broadcasting Commission. They should remain separate because electronic and print media have distinct mechanisms globally, he said. Maldivian journalists had been open to combining the bodies but the rushed parliamentary process has raised suspicions of ulterior motives, reinforcing their preference for separate bodies, he added.

The state-owned Public Service Media should be regulated separately from independent media, he stressed. State media should not have the same platform and status as independent outlets, he said.

Hiriga said the “whole bill does not provide any safeguards for journalists, it provides protection for authorities and that is not how it should be.” He criticised the bill's approach as narrow-minded. Echoing several other journalists, he told MPs that Maldivian political history suggests they would be back in the opposition in about three years. 

Acknowledging concerns about the effectiveness of the existing self-regulatory mechanism, Hiriga pointed out that parliament itself lacks any oversight or public trust. The Media Council could be strengthened with more funding and resources in lieu of transferring media oversight to parliament, he advised. 

Hiriga referred to the case of a young woman's unexplained fall to underscore the value of good journalism. Contrary to rampant speculation on social media about a gang rape and murder, investigative reporting by Dhauru uncovered evidence suggesting a likely accidental fall. Accurate reporting changed public perceptions about an alleged politically-motivated killing, which benefitted by the government by calming youth-led "nepo baby" protests, he suggested. 

Sulaiman criticised the lack of consultation and the bill's unclear authorship. “If you are writing something aimed towards a profession, you have to include technical experts and professionals from that field,” he said.

He reiterated the consensus view that the bill was beyond chapter-by-chapter revision and needed a complete overhaul, which he noted the committee couldn't do this after the bill had been accepted in a floor vote.

He accused the bill's proponents of using defamation as a pretext to suppress allegations of corruption and wrongdoing. The law offers civil remedies for defamation and accountability mechanisms exist to protect the constitutional right to "protect one's good name and reputation," he noted. 

Estonia, whose digitalisation model the government adopted for its Maldives 2.0 initiative, has separate self-regulatory watchdogs for print and broadcast media, Aaidh noted. 

He urged ruling party lawmakers to recall their reliance on the media during opposition protests under the previous administration. MPs should ask Minister Mohamed Saeed and Ahmed Shiyam about how desperately they needed coverage when protesters were arrested, he suggested. 

Referring to Majority Leader Ibrahim Falah's widely-condemned calls for journalists to be "impaled" over false claims about his appearance in a gay sex tape, Aaidh noted the mainstream media's reporting of his defence and setting the record straight at the time. 

“Who will report those stories when the media is controlled?” he asked. 

He criticised the bill's focus on punitive measures rather than protection of journalists. Maldivian journalists who faced violent reprisal includes the current information minister, he noted. 

The bill represents an unconstitutional restriction of a fundamental right, Naaif argued. Press freedom could not be curtailed even under a state of emergency when other rights could be temporarily suspended. Any revision to the chapter on basic rights would require a public referendum, he noted.  

According to the constitution, rights and freedom could be limited by law "to any extent only if demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." But the bill fails the three-part test – including having a legitimate aim and a state of necessity – used by the UN Human Rights Committee, he argued.

While the main justification offered in defence of the bill concerns allegedly unrestrained defamation, Naaif disputed that there was such a crisis in the Maldives. Defamatory content typically comes from anonymous social media accounts, he noted, referring to a pro-government account that recently posted his photo and called him and another MJA executive committee member "thieves."

MJA research has found that the public is mainly concerned about government control over media narratives and the failure of journalists to serve the public interest, he said. 

Naaif questioned the practicality of "truth commissions." Media regulation should focus on established procedures such as evidence-gathering standards and offering the right to respond to the accused. 

Hassan cited Norway as a good example for democratic norms and best practices. A dedicated Norwegian authority regulates broadcast media to prevent monopolies and protect children's rights, he noted. A separate independent commission, composed of four journalists and three members of the public, handles complaints based on ethical guidelines. This model stands in stark contrast to the one proposed in the bill, he said: “There is no reason that the president should appoint a member to the commission”

The Maldives Media Council is similar to its Norwegian counterpart. The council has established three sets of guidelines, including ethical standards for journalists, protections for children, and protocols for reporting on minors in conflict with the law. The Broadcasting Commission has nine guidelines for television and radio reporters.

The media is capable of self-regulation but the current system should be improved to make it more effective, Hassan said. The electoral process could be reformed to prevent the registration of multiple media outlets to gain voting rights, he recommended.

Hassan raised concerns about vague provisions in the bill that require journalists to disseminate "true" information and to be "fair" and "unbiased." But the interpretation of these terms is left to the discretion of commission members.  

“At the point that a journalist makes a decision to report one thing among thousands of things happening in the country, and decides that this is important to the public, the journalist has already favoured a side or become biased. This bill is structured in a way that can very easily judge journalists to be guilty," he warned.

Hassan criticised a provision that prohibits content that could "infringe on someone’s dignity." To illustrate the point, he held up cartoons on the cover of The New Yorker magazine, including a 2018 cover with President Donald Trump as a baby playing golf. He also showed political cartoons published in the Haveeru newspaper in 1980 after the end of former president Ibrahim Nasir’s reign.  

On a provision that require journalists to declare personal interests related to a story, Hassan asked whether a journalist who uses the Aasandha health insurance must disclose it when reporting on the scheme. 

“Everyone has their interests wrapped up in a lot of issues. The important thing here is following ethics and journalistic best practices," he said.

A provision that penalises media outlets for publishing information that is "untrue or can be proven to be untrue" could meanwhile be invoked to hold journalists accountable for quoting a source.

"For example, in Adhadhu, and I know in other publications as well, we have to do fact checks of President Muizzu’s comments because he lies. So we do the fact check after reporting that story, after publishing it. So if that first publication can be penalised that would be a big problem."

Junayd called the bill "void ab initio" or invalid from the outset. It was formulated without discussion with any of the main stakeholders, including the media, the regulatory bodies, the public or civil society. 

Consultation is not a foreign or a western concept, he noted, pointing to the Arabic words on the logo of the People’s Majlis, a Quranic verse that translates to “conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.”

"You need to make it clear to journalists why there is such an urgency to dismantle this existing system. Why do you need to rush this and get this done like a set of firecrackers? It is not clear to us why this is so urgent."

The bill fails to address real issues facing the media such as the excessive amount of partisan content, he said. Junayd highlighted the failure to address impunity for crimes against journalists, noting the October 2013 arson attack on Raajje TV, the abduction of Maldives Independent (formerly Minivan News) journalist Ahmed Rilwan, and the murder of blogger Yameen Rasheed.

Successive administrations have controlled the media through state-funded sponsorships, he noted, expressing concern over state-owned enterprises recently pulling advertising from outlets opposed to the bill.

On the argument that public funds would be saved by combining the regulatory bodies, Junayd noted high expenditure on state media: “Between 2015 and 2021, MVR 275 million was spent on state media. Annually, MVR 80 million is spent to spread the propaganda of the ruling party."

Ted asked MP Hussain Riza Adam, the committee's chair, if the bill requires a public referendum to endorse the narrowing of press freedom. When MP Riza declined to answer, he continued: "Today the committee can clearly see what the media thinks about this bill. The media is saying throw out this bill, throw it out. That this bill is trying to restrict our freedoms and rights, for the government to control the media. My sincere plea to the committee is when you complete reviewing the bill, please recommend the floor to reject the bill."

He advised lawmakers to “not go into the history books as the people who locked up media freedom.”

“Every time I read this bill, I notice something new that is wrong with this bill," she said, accusing MPs of being "chained to whip lines" and sticking to talking points fed by the party since last year's anti-defection constitutional amendment, and yet seeking a platform by paying news organisations.  

“I am shocked. I am flabbergasted at the level of passion and interest you have to do this in the name of regulating the media. But when it comes to talking about public interest and when it comes to talking about policy, we don’t hear your voice. You don’t have your own opinion on the parliament floor today.”

She concluded by respectfully asking lawmakers to follow their conscience and to "think with your own brain about the provisions in this bill."

Usham drew a parallel between the proposed regulator and other independent bodies such as the Judicial Service Commission. A member of the JSC could be removed by the body they represent. MP Riza, who represents parliament, could be replaced by the legislature. Lawyers could vote out the representative of the legal profession, he said. 

But according to the bill, parliament could remove members elected to the commission by the media over gross incompetence or for committing an "inappropriate" act.

“Whenever a ruling party gets a supermajority in parliament, the parliament will have full control over this commission and this commission will look into all journalists in Maldives. There’s nothing else in this bill," he said.

“My call, from the very north of Maldives, is to throw out this bill.”

Hamdhoon reiterated calls from other journalists to support the Media Council with the resources it needs to handle complaints and enforce ethical standards. 

“I too believe that the media should be responsible. There are things that can be done. But this bill is not the solution. This bill would make the media situation worse. If you want to genuinely reform media regulation, meet MJA and the media council and journalists, let us make a proper bill.”