Terminating employees for exercising their right to freedom of expression is an act of injustice, and MDP will provide them with necessary assistance: Mauroof
MDP’s Legal Director Ahmed Mauroof has condemned the dismissal of an STO employee over social media comments as an illegal act, asserting that terminating staff without notice for personal opinions unrelated to their professional duties is unacceptable. Mauroof further emphasized that private companies do not have the legal authority to determine whether an individual’s actions constitute contempt of court.
Ahmed Mauroof, Legal Director of the MDP. | Raajje MV
The MDP's Legal Director, Ahmed Mauroof, has stated that dismissing employees for exercising their right to freedom of expression is an act of injustice. He further pledged that the MDP will provide legal assistance to those who are terminated under such circumstances.
Mauroof made these remarks while expressing concern over the abrupt dismissal of an STO employee. The termination followed a ruling that the individual had violated a Criminal Court order issued in connection with the documentary "Aisha."
The employee was dismissed for violating a Criminal Court order in a social media post, which the company stated breached its general code of conduct. Additionally, the individual is accused of using language that harassed the President and the First Lady.
In a post shared on X regarding the matter, Mauroof stated that exercising the right to freedom of expression on social media is unacceptable grounds for summary dismissal, provided the views expressed are unrelated to the employer's business operations.
Mauroof stated that dismissing an employee without notice for expressing personal views unrelated to their professional duties is a profound injustice and an illegal act. He emphasized that employers must not act in a manner that infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of expression afforded to every citizen.
Furthermore, Mauroof stated that employers do not have the authority to determine whether a specific act constitutes contempt of court. He emphasized that the Criminal Court is the sole body responsible for deciding whether an action amounts to contempt, and that making such determinations does not fall within the mandate of employers.
In connection with this matter, Mauroof has sought public assistance to identify the individual who was dismissed from their position. He requested anyone with information regarding the person's identity to come forward and share those details. He characterized this as a vital step toward protecting the rights of employees.
Issues have recently surfaced regarding disciplinary actions taken against several employees over opinions expressed on social media. Legal experts are expressing concern over these developments. Many are calling for respect for the protections afforded to employees under the Employment Act, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
