Aisha documentary sparks major press freedom crisis in the Maldives

On March 28, 2026, the independent Maldivian news outlet Adhadhu released Aisha, an investigative documentary that would shake the foundations of the nation’s fragile democracy. The film featured an anonymised interview with a young woman, a former President’s Office appointee, who alleged a sexual relationship with President Mohamed Muizzu.

Adhadhu reported reviewing chat logs between the woman and the president, lending weight to her claims. Muizzu, a married father of three, dismissed the allegations as “baseless lies.” The state responded to the documentary with a sweeping crackdown that revealed the extent to which power could be weaponised against dissent.

The Immediate State Response: Raids, Bans and Gag Order

The release of Aisha came just days before local council elections and a constitutional referendum, a politically sensitive moment for Muizzu’s administration. When journalist Mohamed Shahzan asked Muizzu about the allegations at a press conference on April 27, the president reacted with fury. Shahzan was escorted out by security personnel on Muizzu’s orders, and military officers attempted to seize the phone of another journalist who filmed the incident. Muizzu declared: “You are making a blatant lie and a false accusation against me. No one will be allowed to violate a court order within this hall.”

That same night, police raided Adhadhu’s newsroom under a Criminal Court warrant, seizing laptops, hard drives, and servers. Senior staff, including CEO Hussain Fiyaz Moosa and Editor Hassan Mohamed, were placed under travel bans. Adhadhu was indefinitely barred from presidential press conferences. These actions marked the beginning of a campaign to silence the outlet and intimidate the wider media community.

Fourteen days into the investigation, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed qazf charges, a provision under Islamic law for false accusations of adultery, against Adhadhu’s leadership. Simultaneously, the Criminal Court issued an unprecedented gag order. It prohibited the circulation of the documentary, deleted related content, and banned any public discussion of the case. The order extended beyond the media to political parties, civil society, and ordinary citizens. The Elections Commission instructed opposition parties such as the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the People’s National Front (PNF) to refrain from mentioning the documentary. The Maldives Media Council and the Broadcasting Commission ordered compliance across all outlets.

The Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) condemned the gag order as “unprecedented in the Maldives’ democratic history.” It noted that blanket bans of this kind are typically reserved for jurisdictions with jury trials, where impartiality must be preserved. The Maldives, however, has no jury system, and judges decide cases. The MJA argued that the order failed constitutional tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and warned that it signaled “the backsliding of democratic rights” under Muizzu’s government.

The Arrest and Sentencing of Journalists

The crackdown escalated when two Adhadhu journalists, Mohamed Shahzan and Leevan Ali Nasir, were jailed for violating the gag order. Shahzan’s “crime” was asking Muizzu about alleged late‑night calls to the former aide. Nasir was punished for reporting on the gag order itself. Both were tried in contempt hearings held behind closed doors, in violation of Article 42(b) of the constitution, which guarantees public trials. They were denied adequate legal representation, given only two hours to appoint counsel. Shahzan explained: “Lawyers are hesitant to take this case in the current political climate.”

The sentences were harsh. Shahzan received 15 days in jail and a fine of MVR 25,000 (US$1,620). Nasir was sentenced to four months and 24 days under contempt regulations, with most of the term converted into a fine of MVR 26,800. Both journalists described the proceedings as rushed and opaque. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned the sentences as a “punitive attempt to criminalise investigative journalism.” The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joined in, calling for their immediate release.

This marked the first time since the adoption of the 2008 democratic constitution that journalists were imprisoned under contempt rulings. It was a chilling precedent, one that underscored the erosion of press freedom in the Maldives.

The Legal Basis: Qazf and Its Misapplication

The decision to pursue qazf charges against Adhadhu’s leadership revealed the extent of legal manipulation. Under Islamic Sharia, qazf requires an explicit accusation of zina, sexual intercourse outside marriage, against a chaste person, supported by four witnesses. The Aisha documentary made no such explicit accusation. It alleged “sexual relations,” but not every sexual offence is legally categorised as adultery. Former Chief Justice Ahmed Abdulla Didi argued that the charges “plainly contravene Article 68 of the constitution” and represented a departure from professional investigative standards. He noted that the gag order itself violated constitutional principles, stating: “A gag order that absolutely restricts freedom of expression and press freedom would plainly contravene Article 68.”

Former Supreme Court Judge Husnu Al Suood echoed this critique, warning that the imprisonment of journalists “undermined the principles of press freedom, accountability, and democratic transparency.” He added pointedly: “Journalism is not a crime.”

The scandal has drawn sharp condemnation from across the political spectrum. Former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih described the jailing of journalists as “another shameful chapter in the government’s attempt to intimidate the press and silence public dissent.” Former Vice President Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed argued that the Criminal Court had no authority to issue such sweeping orders against political parties or the public, calling the move a distortion of judicial power.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed went further, urging defiance of the gag order: “Filing criminal charges against journalists, forcing the disclosure of sources, raiding news offices, seizing property and equipment, and removing journalists from press conferences for asking unfavourable questions is unacceptable.” He described widespread public defiance of the injunction as “a form of protest to defend the right to freedom of the press.”

Former President Abdulla Yameen, himself no stranger to controversy, distinguished between Muizzu’s official and personal capacities, noting: “Things done in the capacity of president are done by President Mohamed Muizzu. But his own personal matters are the things Dhimyaathu Mohamed Muizzu does. The allegations under discussion concern such a matter.” His statement underscored the view that the scandal was personal, yet the state’s response was institutional, an abuse of public power to protect private reputation.

The Aisha scandal unfolded against a backdrop of democratic erosion. In September 2025, parliament passed a media law granting a government‑dominated commission powers to fine, suspend, and shut down outlets. Muizzu’s allies had already overhauled the Supreme Court, removing three judges in moves widely seen as politically motivated. The release of Aisha coincided with a constitutional referendum in which 69 percent of voters rejected Muizzu’s proposal to align presidential and parliamentary election cycles, a stinging rebuke that highlighted his waning legitimacy.

The scandal thus became more than a personal controversy. It symbolises the misuse of state institutions to suppress dissent, intimidate the press, and shield the president from scrutiny. In a nation where community bonds are strong and reputational integrity carries immense weight, the attempt to silence discussion of Aisha only deepened public suspicion and resentment.

The release of Aisha and the subsequent crackdown represent one of the most serious assaults on press freedom in the Maldives since its democratic transition in 2008. The misuse of qazf charges, the imposition of a sweeping gag order, the raids on newsrooms, and the imprisonment of journalists all point to a government willing to weaponise law and institutions to protect its leader from accountability. The voices of former presidents, judges, and civil society leaders converge on a single truth: journalism is not a crime, and freedom of expression is not negotiable.

By attempting to erase the scandal through repression, Muizzu has not only eroded his own public mandate but also damaged the democratic fabric of the Maldives. In the words of Husnu Al Suood, it “undermined the principles of press freedom, accountability, and democratic transparency.” And as Nasheed reminded the nation, defiance itself becomes a form of protest: a reminder that the struggle for democracy in the Maldives is far from over.