Region 
 

Maldives

Press Under Siege

The Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill poses a threat to press freedom and democratic governance

By Daniyal Talat | December 2025


The Maldives is facing a critical moment for press freedom and democratic governance as the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill moves through the legislative process. Although presented as an administrative reform, the Bill introduces sweeping changes that significantly expand executive influence over the media landscape. Its provisions point towards a future in which journalists may operate under tighter state scrutiny, and the public could face increasing restrictions on their access to independent information.

Central to the concerns raised by journalists, civil society, and international observers is the proposal to merge the Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission into a single Media and Broadcasting Commission. While this might streamline media oversight, the structure of the new body reveals the opposite intention.

The Bill gives the president a decisive role in appointing members of this Commission, allowing the executive branch to shape, influence, and potentially control the regulator responsible for monitoring media content, issuing licenses, and imposing penalties. Such centralization of authority erodes the principle that media regulators must remain independent if they are to serve as fair arbiters between the state and the press. In a politically polarized context like the Maldives, executive dominance over the media oversight body risks transforming it into a mechanism for political control rather than an institution that protects press freedom.

The Bill also introduces severe penalties for journalists and media organizations. These include heavy fines that could be financially devastating, particularly for smaller outlets that already operate on limited resources. When journalists face the threat of substantial financial sanctions, the natural consequence is an increase in self-censorship. Media organizations may hesitate to report on politically sensitive issues, expose government misconduct, or publish investigative pieces that could provoke official retaliation.

This erosion of journalistic independence undermines the press’s role as a watchdog and weakens democratic accountability. Even more troubling is the authority granted to the proposed Commission to suspend media licenses or block websites without seeking approval from the courts. Removing judicial oversight opens the door to arbitrary or politically motivated actions against media outlets.

In the digital era, where online news platforms are essential for public access to information, the ability to block websites or halt operations with minimal accountability is tantamount to a form of censorship. This power could be used to silence critical voices during politically sensitive periods, limit scrutiny of government actions, or manipulate the flow of information during elections. The public ultimately pays the price when reliable and diverse sources of information are restricted. The cumulative effect of these provisions is a more controlled media environment where journalists are discouraged from pursuing stories that hold the government accountable, and the public receives information that may be filtered or influenced by political actors. These dynamics represent a serious challenge to democratic governance.


With security concerns and weather adversities in hilly districts, holding elections on March 5 poses a significant challenge. Hence, the government might seek a tenure extension for a few more months. This will undoubtedly raise a critical legal issue that has thus far gone largely unaddressed. Article 93(1) of the Constitution clearly stipulates that no more than six months may elapse between two consecutive sessions of the House of Representatives (HoR). There is no explanation as to whether ‘two consecutive sessions’ refers to two consecutive sessions within a particular parliamentary term or two consecutive sessions at any point in time. However, the global parliamentary practice explicitly reflects that there should be no period longer than six months without a session of the HoR at any point in time. This implies that the new session of the HoR should be summoned mandatorily within six months of the previous session’s termination, that is, by March 11, 2026. Otherwise, it will add to the tally of extra-constitutional affairs in the country.

Since the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, Nepal has experienced 28 prime ministerial changes in 35 years, with some individuals repeating as prime minister multiple times

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench may issue a verdict declaring that the government was formed on unconstitutional grounds. This will automatically reinstate the dissolved HoR, and the new government will be formed from within the Parliament. However, the so-called Gen-Z and their supporters may refuse to accept this development, which might lead to severe violent political confrontations.

On the other hand, Gen Z is not an organized political group, but rather a global age group. The Gen-Z movement was an uncoordinated and spontaneous protest that external non-Gen-Z intruders instigated. The so-called Gen-Z group has also been fragmented into smaller factions vouching for political benefits. Hence, there is a possibility that Gen-Z groups might not disobey the court’s verdict, and politics will take its usual course. The government formed by Parliament will assume the responsibility for early or general elections. With the current political system, the new government is likely to be a coalition government. Hence, the prime ministerial musical chair will continue, and the new innings of political instability will continue.

There are also discussions regarding transforming the current parliamentary system to one with a directly elected executive head. However, this seems a distant reality at the moment. Firstly, this transformation is not possible under the provisions of the current Constitution. Secondly, a large section of the population is unaware of what precisely a directly elected executive head is and how the electoral process functions. With these uncertainties, there is a possibility that the wrong person will be elected – a detrimental move for the country. Thirdly, Nepal has experimented with various political systems in modern times, including dynastic prime ministerial rule, hereditary monarchy, autocratic non-party systems, and multi-party democracy with and without a ceremonial monarchy.

Global experience demonstrates that the type of political system does not solely determine development, but rather the discipline, vision, and commitment of political leaders and citizens. With an extremely politicized Nepalese society, the directly elected executive head may ultimately metamorphose into a callous autocrat. Hence, what Nepal requires is not a change in the political system but to elevate the political and civic conscience of the people.

In a nutshell, the violent Gen-Z movement has brought Nepal to a critical crossroads. However, Gen-Z is just an impulsive medium; the governments and established political parties have often prioritized their own interests over the broader development needs of the country. Hence, Nepal has been sliding into a tunnel of deep uncertainty for a long time. Alas, unless all political stakeholders and the citizens act responsibly and cooperatively, it could take decades before any light appears at the end of this dark tunnel. Definitely, a steep way ahead for Nepal.

Read More