High Court Judges' Council has ruled that the registrar's decision to reject the appeal from the Maldives Journalists Association against the Criminal Court gag order prohibiting discussion of the Adhadhu news documentary was wrongful.
MJA submitted an appeal against the Criminal Court gag order citing that if affected journalists as well. The gag order prohibited circulation and discussion, either directly or indirectly, of a video documentary produced by Adhadhu News.
The High Court's registrar, however, rejected the case stating that the MJA is not amongst the litigants of the case that the gag order stems from, and hence does not hold the right to appeal it.
The MJA then appealed the registrar's decision with the High Court's judges panel, which compiled a three-judge bench to hear the appeal.
Presiding judge High Court Chief Judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa's opinion states that the gag order does not fall within the three types of orders defined in Article 198(a) of the Criminal Procedures Act. He said that based on how the article is phrased in the law, the proper interpretation is that the rule that only a litigant can appeal an order only applies to these three types of orders.
In orders that do not fall within these three defined types, anyone who the order affects can appeal the order even if they are not a direct litigant of the overarching case, he said.
His opinion further stated that the Criminal Court gag order in question did not solely apply to the litigants of the concerned case. As it is a blanket order that applies to everyone, MJA, too, has the right to appeal it, he found.
Judge Ibrahim Mahir had a concurring opinion where he found that the registrar's decision to reject MJA's appeal on the basis that they are not a direct litigant of the case the order stems from is wrongful.
The two-judge majority hence ruled to overrule the registrar's decision.
The third judge on the bench, Judge Dheebanaaz Fahmy, however, presented a dissenting opinion. She stated that there is no justifiable reason to overrule the registrar's decision.
Judge Dheebanaaz's opinion states that although every action is not explicitly prohibited in law, this is not a license for people to act in any manner that saves them best at a given time in a manner that undermines the purpose of the law.
Judge Dheebanaaz maintained that the right to appeal a criminal case only applies to direct litigants to whom the ruling or order applies to.
The Criminal Court issued the gag order through a qazf case being heard against Adhadhu News CEO Hussain Fiyaz Moosa and Editor Hassan Mohamed.
Qazf is an Islamic legal term referring to the wrongful accusation of unlawful sexual acts or adultery.
After the High Court rejected MJA's appeal against the gag order, Fiyaz has appealed the order at the High Court.
The Bar Council has applied to intervene in this appeal case.
Two Adhadhu News journalists were previously imprisoned for contempt of court after the Criminal Court found them to have breached the order for posing a question relating to the documentary at a presidential press briefing, and for reporting on the gag order itself.
