Under existing Judicature Act, Criminal Court does not have the legal authority to issue restrictive measures such as gag orders!
Legal questions have arisen regarding a recent gag order issued by the Criminal Court, as the Judicature Act grants the exclusive authority to issue such orders for ongoing trials solely to the Supreme Court. While Supreme Court precedents allow for reporting that does not prejudice the right to the presumption of innocence, the Criminal Court’s order is exceptionally broad and applies nationwide. Furthermore, since the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for such measures, there appears to be no legal basis for lower courts to exercise this power.
The building housing the Criminal Court. | RaajjeMV
Under the Judicature Act, the power to issue a gag order—an injunction prohibiting specific actions or speech regarding a matter currently before the courts—is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court of the Maldives.
Issuing "gag orders" to prevent public discussion regarding ongoing court cases is not an established principle under Maldivian law.
Then there is the Judicature Act of the Maldives. According to Section 22 of the Act, the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to issue all necessary orders pursuant to the Act and the Supreme Court Regulations regarding any case or matter submitted to it. Furthermore, the Court is empowered to take all essential measures to establish and maintain justice, prevent the abuse of the judicial system, and uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is empowered to issue various orders in accordance with the law, either on its own motion or at the request of a party involved in a case. These powers may be exercised to ensure the administration of justice or to prevent the abuse of the legal system in instances where any party violates the principles established under this Act or the Regulations of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, regarding the Criminal Procedure Act currently in effect in the Maldives, it similarly contains no provisions concerning this type of court order.
Under the existing legal framework of the Maldives, the provision most closely aligned with this type of order is Article 47 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. This article outlines the procedures for law enforcement agencies to seek court orders for actions that legally require judicial authorization, beyond the specific orders detailed elsewhere in that chapter. It also stipulates the required format and standards for such miscellaneous court orders.
Therefore, under the current legal and regulatory framework, it can be argued that the authority to issue gag orders rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. This is because Section 22 of the Judicature Act grants the Supreme Court the specific power to issue such orders. Furthermore, powers and functions vested in the nation's highest court by laws and regulations are not automatically applicable to, or exercisable by, all other courts.
However, the Criminal Court recently issued a gag order. The order cited precedents established by the Supreme Court in two previous cases.
One such order was issued by the Supreme Court during the appeal proceedings of Mohamed Ameen, who has been charged in a terrorism-related case. The order stipulates that every individual maintains the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It further prohibits the dissemination of any opinions or news that could undermine this constitutional right before a final verdict is reached, stating that any such actions would be considered contempt of court.
This order in Amin's case also marks the first gag order of its kind to be issued by a Maldivian court.
The other referenced order was issued by the Supreme Court regarding the charges filed against Ahmed Moosa Mohamed (Ammaty) in the SeaLife case. That ruling follows the same principle. It stipulates that expressing any opinion that undermines the right to the presumption of innocence until a court reaches a verdict shall be considered contempt of court.
Looking at both orders as a whole, it is evident that reporting on the case has not been subject to an absolute ban. Instead, both the Supreme Court order and the Criminal Court order referenced therein indicate that the path remains open for news dissemination, provided it adheres to the standards prescribed by law.
The scope of the Supreme Court's order remains notably narrow. In contrast, the Criminal Court has issued an order targeting the entire Maldivian population. It is framed in a manner that criminalizes all citizens for engaging in specific actions, representing an exceptionally broad application of judicial authority. However, the question remains: does the Criminal Court possess the legal authority to issue a gag order? Under the current legal framework, such power is vested exclusively in the Supreme Court.
