Court rules remarks against president’s son constitute defamation
The court, however, stated it does not have the legal authority to mandate a public apology under Maldivian law.
The Civil Court on Sunday ruled that comments made by Mariyam Zubair, a Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) activist, regarding President Dr Mohamed Muizzu’s son, Umair Mohamed Muizzu, amounted to defamation.
The ruling follows a civil suit filed by First Lady Sajidha Mohamed against Zubair, the MDP, and its chairperson Fayyaz Ismail. The case concerns remarks made by Zubair during an MDP rally, in which she linked a ban on vaping devices in the Maldives to the President’s son.
According to the Civil Court, the defendants did not respond to the claims by the deadline. A reply was submitted after the due date. Sajidha requested that the court proceed with a judgment in the absence of the defendants.
In its ruling, the court determined that Zubair’s statements were defamatory and that the First Lady had presented three main requests:
-
1-
That Umair’s right to the protection of his name and reputation under the Constitution and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child had been violated.
-
2-
That she is entitled to claim compensation for harm suffered or likely to be suffered by her son.
-
3-
That the defendants be ordered to issue a public apology for the remarks made and their consequences.
Presiding Judge Faisal Adam ruled that Zubair’s remarks violated Umair’s right to reputation and that Sajidha is entitled to seek damages. The court, however, stated it does not have the legal authority to mandate a public apology under Maldivian law.
Regarding the roles of the MDP and its chairperson, the court noted that their responsibility for Zubair’s remarks would be determined upon further examination of the case.
Meanwhile, the MDP has filed an appeal with the High Court seeking to dismiss the Civil Court's case. The appeal argues that the case cannot be heard by the Civil Court, as defamation claims must be filed by the person directly affected. Since the complaint was filed by Umair’s mother, the MDP contends it does not meet the criteria set by procedural rules.
In parallel, Sajidha has filed a related case with the Family Court, asserting that the incident violated the dignity and protections afforded to her son under the Children’s Rights Protection Act and relevant international conventions.
The High Court has registered the MDP’s appeal and proceedings are ongoing.
