High Court schedules appeal over gag order issued against Adhadhu documentary
The High Court has accepted an appeal filed by Hussain Fiyaz Moosa challenging a Criminal Court gag order issued against the editors of Adhadhu news. While a hearing for the case has been scheduled for June 29, 2026, a previous challenge filed by the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) regarding the same matter was dismissed by the court on the grounds of lack of legal standing.
A photograph taken from outside the High Court. | High Court
The High Court has scheduled the appeal hearing regarding a "gag order" issued by the Criminal Court in connection with a documentary produced and released by Adhadhu news.
RaajjeMV understands that the High Court has scheduled a hearing for this case on June 29, 2026.
This case concerns a court order issued against Adhadhu’s Editor-in-Chief and CEO, Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, and Editor Hassan Mohamed, following a documentary released by the news outlet. The order prohibited the publication of any information related to the ongoing lawsuit until a final verdict is reached. The injunction has been appealed in the High Court by the defendant, Hussain Fiyaz Moosa.
The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA), an organization dedicated to press freedom, was the first to petition the High Court to overturn the order. However, the court dismissed the case at that time.
At the time, the High Court justified its decision to reject the case by stating that the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA) lacked the legal standing to appeal the gag order, as the association was not a party to the original proceedings to which the order pertained.
Following the dismissal of the case initially filed by the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), the High Court has now accepted and scheduled an appeal filed by Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, the CEO of Adhadhu, who is the direct defendant in the matter.
This case has been identified as a significant matter concerning the freedom of the press and the right to freedom of expression. Many contend that the court order has created obstacles in disseminating relevant information to the public.
