Foreign and local associations criticize Maldives Evidence Bill

A total 10 distinct organizations both local and international have urged Maldives' state to revise the recent amendment to the Evidence Act.

The recent evidence bill made revisions on the mandate of authority courts held, granting them the power to enforce journalists and media outlets to reveal sources over specific matters.

Both local and international organizations that criticized the decision called it a regression on press freedom and a threat to freedom of expression.

The bill which recently received both parliament approval and presidential ratification was heavily criticized by Reporters Without Borders, International Federation of Journalists, Human Rights Watch as well as Amnesty International while local bodies had included Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) and Editors Guild.

In a joint statement by the organizations, it had criticized the ambiguity in article 136 of the bill which granted authority to Maldivian courts to demand revealing sources in cases related to terrorism and threats to national security.

The organizations claimed that though the article specified source revelation can be made enforceable in said matters, the definitions of these situations have not been prescribed.

They also shared concern of state bodies using this ambiguity to exploit the rights of journalists and media outlets, coercing them to reveal sources on the pretext of terrorism and national security threat.

Failure or refusal by journalists or media outlets to comply to the demands made by courts in matters relating to terrorism or national security threats subject to jail terms of three months or stiff fines.

After the bill was approved by the Maldives Parliament, over 150 journalists signed a petition urging the Maldives President to stave off the bill's ratification, which was not heeded by the head of the state.

The organizations also argued that such statutes hindered the room for witness testimonies, as witnesses to major criminal activities will have reservations over stepping forward to disclose sensitive information.

The bill is in contradiction with international standards on freedom of expression as well.

The joint statement had called on Maldivian government to revise the bill in accordance to international convention on human rights.

They also requested seeking counsel of both local and foreign experts before the scheduled implementation six months post ratification.

Parliament is alleged with rejecting pleas from both MJA and Maldives Media Council related to the bill, as well as the concerns raised by international bodies.

President's Office had on released a statement on July 21 defending the government's decision to implement the bill, claiming it will not hamper press freedom or the freedom of expression.

Though the President's Office statement claimed that orders by the local courts to reveal sources on terrorism or national security threats cases may be appealed, it is not reflected on the bill.