High Court rules dismissal of appeal was erroneous; journalists' association not party to original gag order
The High Court bench has overturned a decision by the court's registrar to reject an appeal against a gag order issued regarding a documentary produced by Adhadhu news. The judges ruled that the registrar's initial refusal to accept the case, which was filed by the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA), was not based on sound legal principles.
A photo taken from outside the High Court. | High Court
The High Court has ruled that its registrar's decision to reject an appeal against a gag order issued regarding a documentary released by Adhadhu was unlawful.
The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) appealed the order at the High Court. However, the court's registrar has rejected the case.
In a decision signed and issued by High Court Registrar Mariyam Hoorushida, the court ruled that the Maldives Journalists Association’s (MJA) appeal could not be accepted as the organization is not a party to the case involving the gag order. The ruling noted that the original charges were filed specifically against Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, the Editor-in-Chief and CEO of Adhadhu Online, and Editor Hassan Mohamed. It further clarified that under Section 198(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the right to appeal is reserved exclusively for the parties involved in the legal proceedings.
The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) has refiled the case, requesting the High Court to review its earlier decision to dismiss the matter.
In its submission, the journalists' association argued that the court order applies universally. They highlighted that those currently imprisoned for violating the order are not even the defendants named in the original case. The association further stated that this fact alone demonstrates that the order is being enforced against the general public.
Furthermore, the statement noted that the Maldives Journalist Association’s (MJA) governing statutes clearly establish it as an organization dedicated to advocating for the rights of journalists.
Furthermore, it was noted that Article 56 of the Constitution guarantees every party involved in a legal matter the right to appeal a lower court's decision. Consequently, the MJA requested that the Registrar's decision be overturned and that the High Court accept the appeal of this order.
The High Court bench has ruled that the Registrar's decision was erroneous. The judges further noted that the decision was not based on sound legal principles.
