Maldives Govt assures no intervening acts on press freedom

President's Office while defending the Evidence Act amendment, claimed the government will not intervene press freedom.

The amendments to the Evidence Act grants authority to local courts to force source revelations from journalists and media outlets on sensitive cases; including acts of terrorism and threats to national security.

President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih had earlier ratified the Evidence Bill much to the dismay of local reporters and media agencies, who argued it was a regression on years of developmental strides of journalism in the Maldives.

The government has fallen into heavy criticism by journalists, media agencies and similar sentimentalists for its apparent disregard to the concerns by the media fraternity.

Prior to the bill's approval and subsequent ratification, Maldives Media Council (MMC) along with Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) made several pleas to pause the bill's proceedings at the parliament.

President's Office state that the decision for approval of the amendments to the Evidence Bill was arrived after considerable discourse and dialogue with all relevant authorities and prime industry stakeholders.

The amendments, which give authority to local courts to demand source revelation from journalists and media outlets over sensitive cases, can be appealed against at local courts said the President's Office.

The President's Office statement further stressed the government's continued support on press freedom and freedom of expression.

The Maldives government will not intervene or intercede on press freedom on any capacity, read the President's Office statement.

Both Media Council and MJA voices their concerns over the inclusion of threats to national security, which has not been legally interpreted under any provisions.

The organizations bemoaned the absence of direct statutes which explain the legal interpretation of 'threats to national security', leaving room for an expansive interpretation at the court's discretion.

Such legal ambiguity gives rise to the possibility of abuse of law by influential parties, or misuse the said ambiguity for multiple interpretations of the statute as courts see fit.

Despite President Office confirming the right to appeal against cases involving forced source revelations during court trials, the right has not been legally enforced by the Evidence Act.