Defamation bill tabled: civil lawsuits over false statements; outlets differ on the damages

This page sums up what seven published sources reported. It is a record of what outlets said, not original reporting.

The Right to Protection of Name and Reputation Bill was presented on behalf of the government by Vilimalé MP Mohamed Ismail. The Standard Maldives reports it had its first reading on 9 November.³ The Maldives Independent says it has 46 sections.¹ Sun Online calls it the Defamation Bill.⁵

Defamation would be a civil wrong, not a criminal offence. It covers false statements, made deliberately or without due care, that lower a person in the eyes of reasonable people, expose them to hatred or isolation, or cause loss.^{1, 4}

The bill covers speech, writing, drawings, cartoons, photos, broadcasts, songs, films and gestures, whether the meaning is direct or implied.^{1, 4, 5} MV+ highlights that a gesture or facial expression could count.⁴ A statement can refer to someone without naming them, if it would reasonably be understood to refer to them.^{1, 5}

According to the Maldives Independent, the law would apply to individuals, companies, registered media, social media platforms, hosting services and other online intermediaries. It says private messages between two people are excluded unless they reach a third party.¹

The author, the publisher and anyone who spreads the material further would be liable. For an online news outlet, the editor and the owner would be responsible, but internet service providers would not.¹ The Standard Maldives and the Maldives Independent report that it would also cover acts abroad that harm someone's reputation in the Maldives.^{1, 3}

The Maldives Independent reports that government institutions and the state's independent commissions and offices could not be sued under the bill.¹

Truth is a defence, and so is an honest opinion based on true facts, according to the Maldives Independent, The Standard Maldives and MV+. The Maldives Independent adds that the defendant must prove it in court.^{1, 3, 4}

Statements in Parliament and in court would have full protection. Accurate reports of Parliament, courts, official inquiries and certain other public proceedings would have qualified protection, the Maldives Independent and The Standard Maldives report. The Maldives Independent says that protection is lost if the person asked for a reply to be published and was refused.^{1, 3}

A person must first send a written notice, and the other side has seven days to respond with a correction, an apology or compensation. A notarised settlement ends the matter.^{1, 3, 4} Claims must be filed within a year, and courts must rule within six months.^{1, 3, 4}

Courts could order an apology, a correction or the removal of material, and an apology or correction can reduce the damages.^{1, 3, 4} The Attorney General's Office would draw up the regulations, to be published within 30 days of the law taking effect, The Standard Maldives reports.³

• The Maldives Independent reports that compensation for non-material harm to reputation would be MVR 50,000 to MVR 500,000, claimable without proving a financial loss, and that compensation for financial loss would be capped at MVR 500,000.¹
• The Standard Maldives reports compensation for financial losses plus up to MVR 500,000 for non-material harm.³
• MV+ reports moral damages of MVR 50,000 to MVR 500,000, plus compensation for proven financial losses.⁴
• Sun Online reports compensation of MVR 200,000 to MVR 2 million, depending on the extent of the damage.⁵

At a press conference on 9 November, Muizzu said the bill gives effect to the right to a good name and reputation under Article 33 of the Constitution. He said no one has the right to spread lies that damage another person's dignity, and that true information and opinions are not defamation.³

The Maldives Independent reports that he also cited Islamic teaching that a person's honour is inviolable.¹

The Attorney General told Parliament in October 2025 that his office was preparing a defamation bill to replace the existing compensation regulation, which sits under the General Regulations Act of 2008. That Act has been extended several times, Sun Online reports.⁶

MV+ reports that a 2016 law under former president Abdulla Yameen made defamation a crime, with heavy fines and powers to suspend broadcasters and close media outlets. Journalists and media organisations opposed it, and it was repealed in 2018. MV+ notes that the new bill classes defamation as a civil wrong.⁴

Former economic minister Fayyaz Ismail, who is seeking the MDP's presidential ticket, said on X on 9 November that if the bills in Parliament pass, Maldivians would no longer be free to criticise the President or the Rasmale' deal. He was speaking about the bills together, not this one alone.⁷

The listed sources include no statement on this bill from media organisations, lawyers or Transparency Maldives.

• Damages. Sun Online gives MVR 200,000 to MVR 2 million. The Maldives Independent, The Standard Maldives and MV+ give MVR 50,000 to MVR 500,000 for non-material harm.^{1, 3, 4, 5}
• Financial loss. The Maldives Independent says compensation for financial loss is capped at MVR 500,000. The Standard Maldives and MV+ do not state a cap.^{1, 3, 4}
• When it was submitted. MV+ says the bill was submitted "yesterday" in an article dated 9 November. The Standard Maldives says it had its first reading on 9 November.^{3, 4}

• Which damages figures are in the bill text.
• When Parliament will vote. The Maldives Independent reports the President said the bills would pass before its recess.¹
• Whether media organisations, lawyers or civil society will respond to the bill.