A United Nations human rights expert Wednesday sharply criticized a law passed by the Maldives parliament to criminalize defamation urging president Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom to return the bill without ratification.
The controversial defamation bill passed Tuesday by the government controlled parliament allows for jail terms and hefty fines for media outlets, journalists and social media users. It puts the burden of proof on defendants and permits revoking licenses of media companies convicted of defamation.
“Criminalising speech on such vague and broad grounds as set out in the Bill is a direct attack on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in the Maldives,” David Kaye the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression said in a statement.
“The freedom of expression is a fundamental right and any restrictions on it must be a narrowly and objectively defined, not a matter of common routine.”
The adopted Bill would criminalise speech deemed to be defamatory, to comment against “any tenet of Islam”, to “threaten national security” or to “contradict general social norms”. Those committing an offence under the bill can face fines and failure to pay the fine will result in jail sentence of three to six months.
Kaye underlined his concerns on the vague use of religion, social norms and defamation as reasons for punishing expression.
Concerns were also raised with respect to the extensive restrictions imposed on the media.
“The threat of additional penalties for the media are likely to lead to even greater self-censorship on issues perceived to be sensitive, limiting public debate on issues of public interest and depriving society from accessing important information on sensitive affairs,” said Kaye.
“I would be eager to engage in discussion with the Maldivian authorities and hope the President will reverse the decision by sending back the bill to Parliament for further review in consultation with independent institutions, journalists, civil society organisations and human rights defenders and bring it in compliance with international human rights standards.”
Criminalises “defamatory” speech, remarks, writings, and other actions such as even a gesture or a sound.
In also targeting any actions against “any tenet of Islam” any actions that “threaten national security” or “contradict general social norms,” the Bill is vaguely formulated to hit a wide target.
Court- imposed penalty of a fine of between rufiyaa 50,000 (US$3,200) and rufiyaa MVR2 million (US$130,000).
Individual journalists are made liable with a fine between MVR50,000 and MVR150,000
There is no recourse to appeal this fine.
if unable to pay the fine, will face a jail term of between three and six months.
Newspapers and websites, which publish “defamatory” comments, could also have their licenses revoked.
Burden of proof is laid on the media source, rather than on the claimant.
Prevents journalists from reporting allegations if the accused refuses to comment, preventing coverage of speeches at political rallies.
Gives Government authorities sweeping powers to target journalists and media outlets.
Unclear how much of the fine would proceed to the claimant, and how much to the State.
Claimants have the right to demand media outlets to immediately stop live feeds.
Compels journalists to disclose an information source.
Will become law from the date it is ratified by the president.
The bill now compels journalists to reveal their sources to prove the veracity of their published articles, news reports or comments and allows for media licenses to be cancelled in addition to the criminal liability faced by individual journalists.
The dangerous new provisions greatly hinder the functioning of an independent media devoid of intimidation and is less about providing redress for victims of defamation.
Those found guilty of breaking the new law will be fined between 50,000 Maldivian rufiya ($3,200) and 2 million rufiya ($130,000) or face a jail term of between three and six months.
The UN had also said it was “very worried” about the law.
“So basically it’s crippling freedom of expression including on the basis of defamation of religion, national security and social norms,” said Mona Rishmawi, chief of the Rule of Law branch at the U.N. human rights office.
The U.S. State Department issued a statement calling the law a “serious setback for freedom of expression in the country.”
Sign In