A journalist from Adhadhu was asked to leave a press conference at the President’s Office today after raising a question concerning matters tied to a documentary that is currently subject to a Criminal Court gag order restricting its publication and discussion.
The journalist, Mohamed Shahzan, who also serves as Vice President of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), posed a question relating to material featured in the documentary produced by Adhadhu, in which a person making allegations against the President is cited.
The Criminal Court had issued an order yesterday prohibiting the dissemination of claims contained in the documentary. The order further directed that the documentary should not be circulated publicly and that its contents should not be discussed directly or indirectly, a restriction that, by its own terms, extends beyond the documentary itself to any material forming part of its claims.
President Cites Court Order
Responding to the question, President Mohamed Muizzu informed Shahzan that the matter raised fell within the scope of the court-issued gag order, and that pursuing it at the briefing was not consistent with the restrictions in force.
“The court has now issued a gag order. Shahzan, you are now in violation of the court order. I therefore request that you leave this hall. You are placing a clearly false claim, a false allegation, on me,” the President said.
When the journalist attempted to ask further questions on the same subject, the President declined to engage, reiterating that no proceeding within the President’s Office could be conducted in contravention of a valid court order.
“A clearly false allegation is being placed on me. This is something I do not accept in any way. Acts in violation of a court order cannot take place within this hall. The rule of law will be upheld within the President’s Office,” the President said.
The President rejected the underlying allegations as false and baseless, and emphasised that his administration remains committed to upholding judicial directives in the conduct of official duties. He noted that the court’s restrictions were issued precisely to prevent the litigation of unproven claims through public channels, and that engaging with material falling within the order, whether framed directly or through related particulars, would itself defeat the purpose of the court’s directive.
The question of whether any specific act ultimately constitutes a breach of the court’s order remains a matter for the judiciary to determine through the appropriate legal process.
Details of the Order
According to the court order, the case falls under proceedings that may be conducted in camera under Article 42(c)(1) of the Constitution in order to maintain public morals. The court further stated that documents and information related to the case must not be publicised, warning that violations could amount to contempt of court.
The order noted that the restrictions were imposed to protect reputations, the rights of the accused, and the interests of the alleged victim. It also emphasised the legal principle that an individual cannot be considered guilty unless proven so beyond reasonable doubt by a court of law.
