Several pro-government lawmakers broke the three line whip during the parliament vote on the controversial defamation bill suggesting a deep division within the ruling coalition over the move to criminalise defamation.
The ‘Defamation and Freedom of Expression Act’ despite being labelled by journalists as the death of free media in the island nation was accepted with 38 MPs voting in favour on Monday.
Two MPs including party leader Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's son Faaris Maumoon voted against the bill while several MPs were absent from the sitting or had walked out just before the vote.
Faaris the MP for Dhiggaru constituency said he would not support the bill if its not amended
Gayoom had earlier urged his party leaders to vote down the bill.
Several parliamentarians from the government aligned Jumhoory Party had also voted against the bill.
PPM parliamentary group leader Ahmed Nihan Hussain Manik said the party was looking into the whip-line violations and vowed to penalise the individual MPs.
The bill is now being reviewed by the 11 member committee which also has overwhelming government majority before it goes back to the parliament floor for a vote.
During the debate on Monday opposition parliamentarians lambasted the bill insisting that it contradicts and violates several rights enshrined in the constitution.
The original bill, prescribed hefty fines of between MVR50, 000 (US$3,200) and MVR5 million (US$324,000) as penalties for violations, with offenders who fail to pay the court-imposed fine will face a one-year jail term.
The new draft bill has only made ‘cosmetic changes’ reducing the maximum fine from the original MVR5 million to MVR2 million. Failure to pay the fine would lead to a jail term between three to six months.
According to the new draft bill, the media must report objectively on speeches and addresses with comments from all relevant parties. Failure to contact an individual to obtain a comment to which the news refers to is indefensible in court.
The particular clause would prove a major challenge for television and radio stations during live broadcasts. For example, if a political gathering is broadcast live, the media outlet could be made accountable for any individual comments or speeches given during the rally.
In addition to broadcast media, the clause could make life difficult for bringing live updates on online newspapers and social media.
The general public could also face heavy penalties for simply airing a personal opinion on any social networking site as social media has been included with media outlets, websites and blogs in the bill.
This means that posting a comment on Facebook or Twitter could be slapped with a hefty fine or even jail term.
The public is in even greater danger from the bill than media outlets. As media outlets found in violation of the bill would first face a civil lawsuit while cases against private individuals would be directly filed with the police.
Police then must investigate the case and has the authority to seek criminal charges.
Human rights groups and media organisations have expressed concern that the bill is being proposed at a time when large-scale corruption allegations against senior government officials are being investigated, so as to silence media exposure of such allegations.
Sign In