Podcast

photo1

photo 2

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN THE MALDIVES

 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. While the UDHR was adopted on 10th December 1948, Maldives has ensured the ‘freedom of expression’ as a constitutional right a decade and a half back before the ratification of the UDHR. Article 12 of the first Constitution of the Maldives, ratified on December 22, 1932, says that citizens have the right to express themselves via speech or pen, as long as they are within the boundaries of the law.

Photo Caption

It could be argued that Maldives embraced freedom of expression while it was an alien concept to the larger part of the world at that point in time. However – emphasise on this however – this was a right guaranteed mostly only on paper. Freedom of expression was just a word that is included in most of the government official’s speeches and that was the extent to which the concept goes in the Maldives.

Freedom of expression was withheld in the Maldives under different pretexts. Expressing one’s opinion that is not in line with the government of the day or the Sultan, was seen as treason and an act against the State. People have been banished to islands, and jailed and tortured for simply speaking against the government of the day.

In the late 80s and early 90s, several activists, who later led the reform movement, started publishing rebellious news papers that started the advent of the freedom of expression in the Maldives. The then government crushed the movement for the time being. But that didn’t extinguish the fire that was the freedom of expression movement.

More rebellious members of Parliament started to come out and speak against the government or some actions of the government. By early 2000s, the reform movement in the Maldives was picking up heat. The discussion about freedom of the press and freedom of the press became household topics.

Following the political unrests of the early 2000s, President Maumoon Abdul Gayyoom decided to reconvene the Constitutional Assembly to amend the Constitution that was ratified only a few years back in 1998. When the public saw the reform movement’s activism and the later televised debates in the Parliament and Constitutional Assembly, people became empowered and started exercising these rights themselves.

Early 2000s saw the publication of dozens of activist magazines, to which countless people started writing articles and contributing different written materials. As broadcasting was only limited to the government, this was the only method to exercise the freedom of the press at that point.

The reform movement was successful to the point where the Government reluctantly started authorizing the first private broadcasters in the Maldives. DhiFM, SunFM, VTV, DhiTV and a few other radio and TV channels added fuel to the freedom of expression adventure.

As Maldivians won the strength to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of expression, chaos followed too. It reached to the peak and then saw successive governments trying their best to put the genie back in the bottle – supress the right to the freedom of expression using any legal loopholes.

The Maldives has seen a decline in freedom of expression in recent years, despite constitutional guarantees. This decline is evident in various forms, from legal restrictions to societal pressures, impacting journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens alike.

One significant indicator of this decline is the Maldives' ranking in the World Press Freedom Index. Compiled annually by Reporters Without Borders, this index assesses the level of press freedom in various countries. The Maldives has consistently ranked low, reflecting a deteriorating media landscape. In 2023, the country was ranked 119th out of 180 countries, highlighting the challenges faced by journalists and media outlets.

Legal restrictions have played a crucial role in limiting freedom of expression. Defamation laws, often used to silence dissent, have been employed to prosecute journalists and activists. Additionally, the government has enacted laws that criminalize speech deemed offensive to Islam or the government, further restricting the scope of permissible discourse. These legal measures have created a climate of fear and self-censorship, as individuals worry about the potential consequences of expressing their views.