Journalists in committee oppose proposed media bill
Representatives from 22 outlets attended the session, while nearly 40 outlets had registered in advance.
Journalists from media outlets across the Maldives expressed opposition to the proposed media regulation B=bill during a meeting of the parliamentary committee reviewing the legislation on Monday.
Representatives from 22 outlets attended the session, while nearly 40 outlets had registered in advance. All but one of the participants opposed the bill.
Speaking at the meeting, Dhauru Managing Editor Ahmed Zahir (Hiriga Zahir) said the struggle for press freedom and freedom of expression was as significant as the struggle for national independence. He urged lawmakers not to restrict basic rights and highlighted that independent self-regulation of state powers is a recognised international principle.
Zahir, who also serves as President of the Editors Guild, noted that parliament’s Ethics Committee oversees the conduct of members of parliament and that a similar system exists for the media. He added that while improvements may be required, the solution lies in strengthening self-regulation rather than government control.
Mihaaru Managing Editor Muizzu Ibrahim also emphasised the importance of self-regulation, comparing it to professional oversight in fields such as law and medicine. He noted that the Media Council had previously proposed reforms but said successive governments had failed to address concerns. Instead, he said, parliament had introduced a bill without consulting media stakeholders.
Other journalists also criticised the approach, saying the government had neglected problems in the self-regulatory system and was now attempting to replace it with a new framework.
Concerns raised by journalists included:
-
The proposed commission would initially be overseen by a committee of the Civil Service Commission, which has no role in media regulation.
-
Four of the seven commission members could be removed, giving political authorities influence over the body.
-
Governments could dominate the commission through state media representatives.
-
The commission’s investigative powers were described as excessive, overlapping with police and judicial functions.
-
Provisions to penalise false reporting were questioned, with journalists noting the difficulty of establishing definitive truth in many cases.
-
Actions against journalists for expressing ideas were described as contrary to democratic principles.
Journalists also argued that the bill contains provisions restricting constitutional rights and contradicting existing legal definitions, making effective amendment difficult.
