The former Chief Justice of the Maldives, Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi, has said that a court decision denying the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) the right to appeal a gag order may be inconsistent with constitutional principles governing access to justice and appellate rights.
In a social media post, he said the right to appeal is a fundamental safeguard of fairness in the administration of justice, citing Article 56 of the Constitution, which provides that any party related to a case has the right to appeal court judgments, sentences or orders in both criminal and civil matters.
advertisement
advertisement
ޢަދުލުވެރިކަމާއި އިންޞާފުވެރިކަމާއެކު ޝަރީޢަތް ހިންގުން ކަަވަރުކޮށްދޭ އެންމެ އަސާސީ އެއް މަބްދައަކީ އިސްތިއުނާފުކުރުމުގެ ޙައްޤުކަން އެނގެން އޮންނައިރު، ކޯޓުތަކުން އިއްވާ ޙުކުމްތަކާއި ނެރޭ އަމުރުތައް އިސްތިއުނާފުކުރުމުގެ ޙައްޤަކީ މައްސަލައާ ގުޅުންހުރި ކޮންމެ ފަރާތަކަށްވެސް… https://t.co/CaWILv9eq6— Dr. Ahmed Abdulla Didi (@AABDULLADIDI) May 17, 2026
His comments follow the High Court’s decision to reject an appeal filed by the MJA challenging a Criminal Court-issued gag order, on the grounds that the association was not a party to the original proceedings and therefore lacked legal standing.
The gag order, issued by Criminal Court Judge Muzammil Nasir, prohibits discussion and reporting on a documentary released by Adhadhu and relates to a defamation case filed under Section 612 of the Penal Code against individuals including Fiyaz and Editor Hassan Mohamed. The case is currently before the Criminal Court.
The High Court ruled that although the order applies broadly and must be complied with by all affected parties, only those directly involved in the original case may appeal it.
The MJA had argued that the order infringes constitutional protections relating to press freedom, freedom of expression and the public’s right to information. It submitted its appeal on Thursday but said it was later rejected on procedural grounds.
MJA President Ahmed Naif said the association has now filed a separate appeal to the High Court judges’ bench, seeking to overturn the registrar’s decision to dismiss the case. He said the organisation would continue to challenge the ruling.
Naif also said that two MJA members remain in detention under the gag order and raised concerns over restrictions on their work and treatment, including claims of solitary confinement reported by the association.
Separately, according to Adhadhu, one of the affected individuals, Fiyaz, has filed an appeal against the gag order in his personal capacity.
