The Maldives, long celebrated for its turquoise waters and luxury resorts, is now at the center of a heated debate over press freedom after President Mohamed Muizzu ratified a sweeping new media law. On Thursday, September 18, 2025, Muizzu signed the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act into law, igniting a firestorm of criticism from journalists, opposition lawmakers, and international rights groups. The legislation, which sailed through parliament with a commanding majority, empowers authorities to impose hefty fines, suspend media licenses, and even shutter news outlets deemed to have violated its provisions.
Under the new law, individual journalists face fines of up to USD 1,620, while media companies could be penalized as much as USD 6,485. Authorities are also authorized to suspend media licenses during ongoing investigations and pursue litigation to cancel licenses outright. Notably, the police now have the power to halt broadcasts mid-air if they are considered to be in breach of the law. According to Devdiscourse and the Associated Press, these measures represent the most significant tightening of media controls since the Maldives transitioned to a multiparty democracy in 2008, ending three decades of autocratic rule.
The passage of the law was anything but smooth. As Al Jazeera and The Hindu reported, the bill was passed in parliament after opposition lawmakers were forcibly removed amid vociferous protests. The session itself was marked by chaos, with Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim greenlighting the vote after expelling seven opposition legislators from the chamber. One opposition MP claimed that legislators were handed the bill just 15 minutes before debate began, raising questions about the transparency of the legislative process. Journalists were barred from covering the proceedings, and some, including Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) president General Naaif Ahmed and former executive member Muzayin Nazim, were removed from earlier sessions.
The law also dissolves the Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission, replacing them with a new Media and Broadcasting Commission. This new commission will have seven members, with three appointed by parliament and four chosen by registered media groups. However, parliament retains the authority to remove any or all members at will, raising concerns about the independence of the regulatory body. The commission’s mandate is broad: it can investigate alleged offenses, fine individuals and companies, suspend or revoke licenses, and require corrections and apologies for what it deems ‘false’ or ‘misleading’ information—though the law stops short of clearly defining what constitutes ‘fake news’.
President Muizzu’s government has defended the law, insisting that it is designed to “create a unified regulatory framework” and “safeguard the constitutional right to freedom of expression,” according to statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Minister Abdulla Khaleel argued that the legislation would establish “clear standards and a code of conduct” and help address “the challenges of misinformation, disinformation and coordinated manipulation of content.” Khaleel also clarified that “personal social media accounts used in a private capacity are not regulated under this legislation.”
Despite these assurances, the backlash has been swift and severe. Media rights groups, both domestic and international, have condemned the law as draconian and a direct assault on press freedom. The Maldives Journalists Association, in a statement after the bill’s passage, accused the government of having “voted to muzzle the press.” MJA secretary general Ahmed Naaif was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying, “The Maldivian parliament has passed a draconian bill that seeks to muzzle dissent online and offline, both on traditional media and social media.” He added, “We journalists will stand together in defiance against this takeover of the media by the executive branch.”
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) echoed these concerns, warning that the law could be used to harass and intimidate the media. The Committee to Protect Journalists described the legislation as a “grave threat to press freedom and media independence,” stressing that it would “undermine the work of independent journalists and place the media under government control.”
Opposition parties have also taken a strong stance. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) called the move a “sad day for democracy in the Maldives” and urged the public to protest the “draconian control bill.” Abdulla Shahid, former foreign minister and ex-president of the UN General Assembly, took to social media to declare, “A government that silences journalists is a government that has lost the courage to face the truth. Instead of fixing the crises our nation faces, they are trying to censor the voices that hold them accountable.” Former president Ibrahim Mohamed Solih went even further, asserting that the law “signifies the end of press freedom in Maldives” and that the “underhanded manner in which it was forced through parliament, despite protests by journalists, opposition parties, media organisations, civil society, and the public, lays bare the government’s disregard for Maldivians’ democratic rights.”
On the ground, the passage of the law was met with protests outside parliament, where demonstrators faced off against police in riot gear. According to local media reports cited by Al Jazeera, two people were arrested and later released. The government’s supporters argue that the law is necessary to combat the spread of disinformation, particularly in a digital age where rumors and falsehoods can travel rapidly. Critics, however, argue that the vague definitions within the law leave it open to abuse and could be wielded as a tool to stifle dissent and shield those in power from scrutiny.
The Maldives’ journey toward democracy has been fraught with challenges. Since 2008, when the country ended 30 years of autocracy and embraced multiparty democracy, it has experienced a series of political upheavals, contested elections, and shifting alliances. President Muizzu himself came to power in 2023 on a platform critical of foreign influence, particularly from India, and now commands a supermajority in parliament. His People’s National Congress (PNC) and its allies control 79 of the 93 seats in the People’s Majlis, giving them broad latitude to pass legislation with limited resistance.
For a nation of just 500,000 people, whose economy is heavily dependent on tourism, the international perception of its commitment to democratic norms and press freedom carries significant weight. Observers warn that the new law could have a chilling effect on independent journalism and erode the hard-won gains of the past decade. As the Maldives continues to navigate its complex democratic transition, the world will be watching closely to see how these new media regulations are enforced—and whether the promise of free expression can survive in the face of mounting government control.
In the end, the Maldives stands at a crossroads, balancing the need for regulation and national security against the foundational principles of a free press. The coming months will reveal whether the new law serves to strengthen or undermine the country’s fragile democracy.