The bill was accepted during an extraordinary sitting while the legislature was officially in recess, fuelling suspicion about the intent behind its rushed passage.

The government of the Maldives is facing mounting criticism at home and abroad over a controversial ‘media regulation bill’ that critics say threatens to undermine freedom of expression and place unprecedented powers in the hands of a politically influenced body.

The bill, submitted by Thulhaadhoo parliamentarian Abdul Hannan AbuBakuru, was accepted during an extraordinary sitting while the legislature was officially in recess, fuelling suspicion about the intent behind its rushed passage. It has since been forwarded to the Parliamentary Committee on Independent Institutions for review.

At a rare intervention on Thursday, the Maldives Broadcasting Commission, commonly known as BroadCom, broke its silence to voice strong opposition to the proposed legislation. Commission President Safa Shafeeq told lawmakers that the bill, in its current form, is unenforceable and risks violating international treaties to which the Maldives is a signatory.

“It is deeply concerning that such a bill was submitted without consultation with relevant bodies or proper research,” Shafeeq said. She revealed that BroadCom had written three separate times to request participation in the drafting process, but the commission’s appeals were ignored.

Shafeeq argued that because the legislation aims to cover all forms of media, from traditional broadcasters to online platforms, a proper national study was required to assess whether the Maldives should pursue a self-regulatory or co-regulatory model. Without such groundwork, she warned, the country risks creating a blanket system that would be almost impossible to administer.

The commission president also underscored the practical difficulties of enforcement. “Even at present, BroadCom does not have the resources, including human resources, for monitoring. A law on paper alone cannot be implemented unless the necessary resources are provided,” she told the committee. She added that the new framework would demand an excessive number of regulations and policies, creating an administrative burden that would stall implementation.

Stifling Dissent

All six other members of the commission, including Vice President Shifla Ibrahim, backed Shafeeq’s concerns. They described the draft bill as an obstacle to the work of journalists and editors rather than a framework that strengthens accountability. Yet lawmakers declined to question the commissioners during the session, abruptly closing the meeting after their statements.

Supporters of the bill within government and parliament insist that the legislation will be refined at the committee stage and that sufficient discussion will be permitted. But that assurance has not quelled fears among independent watchdogs and rights advocates.

The global rights organisation, Human Rights Watch said that the proposed Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill would abolish the existing Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Broadcasting Commission, replacing them with a single seven member body. According to the draft text, three members would be directly appointed by the president and the remaining members could be removed by parliament through a vote of no confidence. Critics say such provisions would all but eliminate institutional independence.

Elaine Pearson, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, said the plan is designed to stifle dissent. “The Maldives government should withdraw the media bill that threatens the rights of journalists and undermines freedom of expression,” she said. “By creating a new commission that is beholden to the president, the authorities are seeking to silence critical voices at a time when greater accountability is needed.”

The group noted that the bill is part of a wider authoritarian shift under President Mohamed Muizzu, whose administration has advanced legislation that would reinstate the death penalty for certain drug offences and reduce the powers of island councils. Rights defenders argue that the cumulative effect is the concentration of power in the executive and a narrowing of democratic space.

Democratic Backsliding

The concerns come as the Maldives has slipped in global press freedom rankings. In 2021 the country stood at seventy second in the World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders. By 2025 it had dropped to one hundred and fourth, reflecting growing constraints on media activity, intimidation of reporters and the absence of institutional safeguards.

Local journalist associations, including the Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Journalists Association, have issued statements echoing BroadCom’s warnings. They contend that the absence of consultation betrays the democratic principles that successive governments pledged to uphold after years of political turbulence.

Analysts also point out that the extraordinary circumstances of the bill’s acceptance, while parliament was on recess, highlight the determination of the government to advance it with limited scrutiny. The speed of the process has raised alarm among civil society organisations that fear the bill will be rushed into law before proper amendments are introduced.

For BroadCom’s Shafeeq, the debate is not about whether media requires oversight, but about the manner in which oversight is designed. She stressed that any new law must emerge from open consultation and evidence based policy making. “Consultation with media and relevant institutions will lead to better acceptance of a bill that governs media,” she told lawmakers.

International observers have urged parliament to halt deliberations until such consultations are held. Human Rights Watch warned that failure to do so would deepen the democratic backsliding evident since Muizzu assumed office.

As the parliamentary committee continues to review the draft, it faces a growing test of whether it can balance government priorities with international obligations and the rights of citizens. For journalists in the Maldives, the outcome may decide whether their work remains protected under an independent framework or becomes subject to direct political control.