Maldives’ press freedom in decline as President’s affair allegations spur crackdown

A political scandal involving President Mohamed Muizzu and allegations of an extramarital relationship with a former employee of the President’s Office has become the catalyst for a broad assault on press freedom in the Maldives.

The incident has rapidly escalated into a campaign of legal harassment, police raids and institutional intimidation of journalists, exposing how fragile press freedom remains even in small democracies that rely on open debate. The episode marks a critical turning point where the protection of the president’s personal reputation is being prioritised over the constitutional rights of the media and the public’s right to know.

In early April 2026, the online outlet Adhadhu published a video documentary in which a young woman, formerly employed at the President’s Office, alleged a sexual relationship with President Muizzu.  The report included an anonymised interview and referenced private chat logs said to have been exchanged outside official working hours and using disappearing‑message features on digital platforms. The outlet presented the material as part of a broader examination of conduct within the executive office, arguing that the public had a legitimate interest in the behaviour of those who serve at the highest level of government.

The government immediately dismissed the allegations as baseless and accused Adhadhu of spreading false information and damaging the president’s honour. Unlike in many democracies where such matters might be addressed through civil recourse or internal disciplinary mechanisms, the Maldivian authorities signaled from the outset that they would treat the story as a criminal issue. President Muizzu called on relevant agencies to take legal action against those responsible for disseminating the report, setting the stage for a punitive response that focused on the journalists rather than the substance of the allegations.

On April 27 2026, Maldives police executed a raid on the offices of Adhadhu, seizing laptops, hard drives and other digital devices used for news production. The operation was carried out under a warrant linked to qazf, or the false accusation of adultery, a charge that allows the state to pursue criminal penalties against those who allegedly make unproven allegations of sexual misconduct. The raid took place less than 12 hours after the outlet had directly questioned Muizzu about the allegations, reinforcing the perception that the executive branch was using law enforcement to punish critical reporting rather than to uphold legal standards. 

In the days that followed, several senior editors and journalists were placed under travel bans that restricted their movement for periods of up to three months. These measures effectively cut them off from regional and international journalism networks at a moment when scrutiny from outside the country could have provided a degree of protection. The International Federation of Journalists and the Maldives Journalists Association condemned both the raid and the travel bans as deliberate attempts to criminalise public‑interest journalism and to create a climate of fear among the wider media community.  The Asian Network for Free Elections and its partner Transparency Maldives also issued a joint statement warning that restrictions on freedom of expression, media work and assembly were becoming increasingly pronounced amid ongoing political protests in the country.

The current crackdown did not emerge in isolation but against a backdrop of tightened legal and institutional controls on the media. In late 2025, the Maldives parliament passed the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, later implemented as the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission Act, which places all media and broadcasting activities under a single regulatory body dominated by executive influence.  That body enjoys broad powers to impose fines, suspend licences, and even shut down media outlets, powers that critics argue can be wielded selectively against voices that challenge the government.

The legal framework is further reinforced by provisions in the Evidence Act, which allow courts to compel journalists to disclose their confidential sources in cases defined as relating to national security or acts of terrorism. Civil society organisations have repeatedly warned that such provisions undermine investigative reporting and deter whistleblowers from coming forward, knowing that their identities may be exposed in adversarial proceedings. When combined with the new media‑control architecture, these tools create a system in which the state can legally dismantle the practical conditions that make independent journalism possible, all without formally declaring a state of emergency.

The impact of this regulatory and operational environment is visible in Maldives’ standing on global press‑freedom indices. In the 2026 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, the Maldives has dropped to 108th out of 180 countries, slipping four places from the previous year.  The assessment highlights major challenges in the political, legal, economic and security dimensions of journalism, pointing to a systemic rather than incidental erosion of media freedom. Domestic media associations confirm that journalists across the country increasingly operate in a climate of fear, with many resorting to self‑censorship on issues that touch the presidency, its allies, or any area deemed politically sensitive.

The recent removal of a symbolic coffin placed by journalists on International Press Freedom Day in Malé further shows how the authorities now treat even non‑violent forms of protest as threats to public order. The Maldives Journalists Association has responded with a set of clear demands, calling for the end of harassment, the withdrawal of restrictive laws, and the enforcement of concrete guarantees for the safety and independence of reporters. Senior opposition figures have echoed these concerns, warning that the country is reverting to a model in which the executive is shielded from accountability through legal and administrative pressure on the media, rather than through open debate and institutional checks.

The affair allegations and the response to Adhadhu’s report have crystallised a fundamental question of freedom. The current course suggests that the authorities are opting for normalising raids, travel bans and regulatory overreach as standard responses to political embarrassment. Unless domestic and international pressure forces a reversal, the Maldives risks cementing its reputation not as a transparent, open democracy but as a small island republic where the president’s honour is protected at the expense of press freedom and democratic accountability.