Freedom or Control: The Media Bill’s Hight Stakes

 

                                                                        

The Maldives is facing crossroads in media freedom.  The people’s majilis is now considering the media and broadcasting regulation bill, which is being presented as an essential step toward modernizing media oversight. Though it could end up being one of the most damaging blows to press freedom in our fledging democracy.

Presented in august 2025 by MP Abdul Hannan Aboobakuru, the legislation suggests combining the Maldives broadcasting commission and the Maldives media council into one entity. It seems reasonable to combine Broadcom and MMC into single organization. Theoretically streamlining institutions could increase supervision and efficiency. The issue though is with the exceptional powers the measure gives the new commission. These powers amount to control and are not just about “regulation”. Before an inquiry the proposed body would have the authority to restrict websites, suspend or cancel media registrations, issue hefty fines and even stop broadcasting.

The independence of the commission is particularly dubious. The possibility that the MMBC may function as an instrument of executive power is increased by the president’s authority to choose its chairman and three of seven members. This makes the regulator more of a political instrument than a neutral watchdog. Additionally, the commission would have the authority to fine media outlets up to 100,000 and individual journalists up to 25,0000 penalties severe enough to scare and suppress negative coverage.

Alarms have been issued by international organizations. According to Human Rights watch warned that such centralization of power is against both international free speech law and the Maldives constitution. Reporters Without Boarders has gone further, arguing that the measure must be repealed in its entirety.
At the same time Journalists staged demonstrations in the majilis and obtained over 150 signatures on a petition opposing the action. Their message is that regulation must not turn into repression.

Proponents of the bill contend that legislation is necessary to address disinformation. Misinformation online is a serious legal and ethical problem all over the world, so that is a legitimate worry. Misinformation has the potential to ruin reputations, skew elections and put people in danger. However, the danger is that the measure grants the government unrestricted power to determine what constitutes false information without any specific definitions or safeguards. This has chilling impact on reporters who may choose to self-censor, stay away from contentious subjects or run the risk of disclosing sensitive information.

The Maldives requires independent self-regulation, open fact-checking projects and better media literacy programs rather than government control. These techniques safeguard press freedom while addressing misinformation.

The majilis committee that is evaluating the bill has received 14 changes in September from the attorney general’s office. Even though amendments may soften certain clauses they cannot address the fundamental issue.

The stakes are significant. A controlled press is worse than an imperfect one.
The only ethical course of action is to withdraw this legislation, conduct sincere consultations with journalists and civil society and develop a framework that promotes a free press that addresses the actual difficulties of the digital revolution.