Protests broke out in the capital on May 13 following the sentencing of two journalists from the independent news outlet Adhadhu to short prison terms. The case, linked to the controversial “Aisha” documentary, has intensified the national debate on press freedom and freedom of expression in the Maldives.
The Criminal Court sentenced journalist Mohamed Shahzan to 15 days in prison and a fine of MVR 25,000 (approximately USD 1,620), while Leevan Ali Nasir received 10 days and a fine of MVR 26,800 (approximately USD 1,738). Both were taken to jail late on May 12 after rushed hearings.
What Led to the Sentencing?
The charges stem from the journalists’ coverage of the explosive documentary “Aisha”, released by Adhadhu on March 28. The film featured anonymized allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power against President Dr Mohamed Muizzu by a former staff member at the President’s Office.
The court had issued a gag order prohibiting direct or indirect reporting on the documentary. Authorities accused Shahzan of violating this order by questioning the President about the allegations during a press briefing on May 11. He was removed from the briefing. Nasir was charged over an article discussing the gag order itself.
Adhadhu and the journalists maintain that their work was legitimate journalism in the public interest. The outlet has vowed to appeal the verdict.
Strong Public Protests and Arrests
News of the sentencing quickly triggered protests in Male’. Former President Mohamed Nasheed led demonstrations demanding the immediate release of the two journalists. Protesters marched through key areas of the capital, holding placards and chanting slogans in support of press freedom.
Police detained at least nine protesters, including two women, during the demonstrations. The Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) organised silent protests and called on the government to respect media freedom and stop using legal tools to intimidate journalists.
This is believed to be the first time journalists have been imprisoned in the Maldives since the country transitioned to multi-party democracy in 2008, making the case particularly significant for the nation’s democratic record.
International Condemnation
The development has drawn sharp criticism from international press freedom organisations. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and other global watchdogs urged the Maldivian authorities to release the journalists immediately and end what they described as judicial harassment of independent media.
Local and international observers have expressed concern that the case could create a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Many fear that smaller media outlets may now practice greater self-censorship when reporting on powerful figures.
Government’s Defence
The President’s Office and government spokespersons have rejected claims that the action targets press freedom. They insist the case is purely about contempt of court and violation of a judicial order, not about suppressing journalism.
Officials argue that the allegations in the documentary are defamatory and that legal processes must be followed to protect individual rights. President Muizzu’s administration has maintained that it supports media freedom but will not tolerate what it calls “false propaganda” intended to destabilise the government.
Broader Implications for Maldives Democracy
This episode comes amid other challenges facing the country, including a significant downturn in the tourism sector and questions over the delivery of several election promises. Political analysts suggest the firm response to the “Aisha” documentary reflects the government’s desire to maintain control over the public narrative during a difficult period.
Opposition parties have seized on the issue, accusing President Muizzu’s administration of becoming increasingly authoritarian. They have called for the charges to be dropped and for stronger legal protections for journalists.
The case highlights the delicate balance in a small nation between protecting reputation, maintaining social harmony, and upholding democratic values such as freedom of the press. In the Maldives’ closely-knit society, where politics and personal relationships often overlap, these tensions are especially pronounced.
What Lies Ahead?
Legal experts expect the journalists to file appeals, which could prolong the case for weeks or months. Meanwhile, the Maldives Journalists Association and civil society groups have announced plans for further peaceful demonstrations and advocacy efforts.
The government is also hosting the 21st Asia Media Summit in the Maldives this week, an event focused on the future of media in the digital age. Observers note the irony of holding an international media conference while two local journalists sit in prison, and expect the issue to be raised during summit discussions.
How the authorities handle the fallout from this case will likely have a lasting impact on the country’s international image and domestic trust in institutions. For many Maldivians, the jailing of the Adhadhu journalists has become a symbol of the broader struggle to protect democratic gains made over the past two decades.
As the story continues to unfold, it serves as a critical test for the Muizzu administration’s commitment to transparency and freedom of expression. The coming days and weeks are expected to see sustained public and international attention on this high-profile press freedom case.
