PSM violated laws during local council elections and referendums; PSM must be reformed: TM

Transparency Maldives (TM) has called for reforms to the governance structure of Public Service Media (PSM), specifically urging changes to the procedures for appointing board members. The organization stated that these reforms are intended to align the broadcaster’s operations with international standards for independence. Key recommendations include insulating board appointments from government influence, defining clear qualifications for board members, and establishing robust mechanisms for tenure and removal to ensure editorial independence and public trust.

Transparency Maldives (TM) issued this call as part of a series of recommendations aimed at addressing systemic issues observed during the Local Council Elections and Women's Development Committee Elections held on April 4 this year, as well as the referendum on the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The organization highlighted concerns regarding bribery, bias within state media, and the misappropriation of state resources, urging immediate reforms to resolve these challenges.

Highlighting the government's misuse of the state media outlet, PSM, Transparency Maldives (TM) stated that it analyzed 589 articles published on psmnews.mv between February 2 and April 15, 2026. This 72-day period encompasses the referendum and local council election campaigns, election day, and the two weeks following the polls. The articles were categorized into eight thematic areas for analysis: project announcements, project inaugurations, project progress updates, government messaging, election-related news, political appointments, accountability, and miscellaneous issues.

Transparency Maldives (TM) highlighted that the study's primary finding shows 321 articles were published across three project-related categories: announcements, inaugurations, and progress updates. This accounts for 54.5% of the total content published by Public Service Media (PSM) during the monitoring period. Additionally, 85 articles were identified as government messaging. Consequently, TM noted that these four categories, which amplify the government's voice and activities, totaled 406 articles, representing 68.9% of the overall coverage. TM stated that this reveals more than two-thirds of PSM's editorial output during the three-month campaign period consisted of government-generated or promotionally-oriented content. Secondly, while election-related news accounted for 26.5% of the coverage, the vast majority was in Dhivehi, with 129 articles in the local language compared to just 27 in English. According to TM, this suggests that PSM’s English content was utilized to promote government projects to international audiences, while news regarding election proceedings and political competition was targeted at the domestic audience in Dhivehi. Thirdly, the study found that only six articles related to accountability were published over the 72-day period. TM identified this significant void in accountability reporting as a violation of Section 5 of the Public Service Media Act.

Transparency Maldives (TM) highlighted that the coverage of development projects doubled mid-campaign compared to the pre-campaign period. During the final two weeks leading up to the vote, this figure tripled, reaching an average of 12.7 articles per day. Compared to the pre-campaign baseline of 2.2 articles per day, the volume of coverage in the final fortnight saw a 5.8-fold increase. The highest volume of reports was recorded on Saturday, March 28, 2026, when Public Service Media (PSM) published 42 articles in a single day. However, immediately following the conclusion of the vote, this figure plummeted to just one article per day—a rate even lower than before the campaign began. TM noted that this sharp post-election decline suggests the surge in coverage during the campaign was not driven by an actual increase in government activity. The organization pointed out that if government projects were truly progressing at a rate of 12.7 per day in late March, such work would not have come to a complete standstill in the week following the election.

According to Transparency Maldives (TM), out of 178 articles published regarding development projects during the final two weeks of the election, 87 articles (48.9 percent) were announcements of new projects. Another 74 articles (41.6 percent) covered project inaugurations, while 17 articles (9.6 percent) provided progress updates on ongoing works. Consequently, nearly half of the increased coverage focused on matters where the timing of the announcement was at the discretion of the announcer. Furthermore, the remaining inauguration news consisted of activities scheduled by the government specifically for the final two weeks of the campaign. TM stated that the sheer volume and nature of these reports, followed by a sudden decline in coverage after the election, clearly demonstrate that PSM’s editorial decisions were not based on routine government activities. Instead, the coverage was strategically targeted to influence the election campaign.

Transparency Maldives (TM) based its assessment of Public Service Media (PSM) on four key criteria. These include the legal obligation to provide equal airtime to all candidates under Section 30 of the General Elections Act, the requirement for equitable opportunity under Section 27 of the Referendum Act, and the statutory mandates governing the state broadcaster under the PSM Act. Additionally, the study referenced the OSCE/ODIHR Media Monitoring Guide, which classifies bias in state media as a misuse of state resources. The assessment also took into account the Venice Commission’s "Code of Good Practice" regarding referendums.

Transparency Maldives (TM) has identified the dissemination of information regarding the referendum as the most serious systemic issue highlighted in its report. TM noted that during the legally mandated 47-day campaign period, out of 36 articles published regarding the referendum question, 11 were explicitly biased toward a "Yes" vote. Conversely, no coverage was provided for those advocating for a "No" vote. TM stated that this constitutes a violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, and 52(b) of the Public Service Media (PSM) Act, as well as the principles of equal opportunity enshrined in the General Elections Act and the Referendum Act. Furthermore, the official information pamphlet for the referendum exclusively featured arguments from those supporting the constitutional amendment. TM asserted that this was not an administrative oversight, but rather a consequence of the legal framework governing presidential decrees, which facilitated a one-sided narrative. TM concluded that the state media’s bias, coupled with a legal framework that allowed official information to be skewed, restricted the environment necessary for citizens to make an informed and independent decision.

Transparency Maldives (TM) highlights that Public Service Media (PSM) is the state broadcaster of the Maldives. It is a public-owned entity funded by the state budget and governed by the Public Service Media Act (Law No. 16/2015). As the official communication channel between the state and the public, its operations—including journalists' salaries, web hosting servers, broadcasting frequencies, and office facilities—are all financed through public funds.

PSM's audience is not a commercial market; it is the Maldivian public. PSM's content is not a commercial commodity; it is a public service.

Transparency Maldives (TM) highlighted that Public Service Media’s (PSM) legal status leads to three distinct implications regarding its conduct. First, from the perspective of administrative law and human rights, PSM is a state institution, and its decisions constitute state actions. Consequently, TM stated that the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Commission and the courts have the authority to oversee whether these decisions remain within legal boundaries. Second, PSM’s resources are classified as state resources under the Political Parties Act. Therefore, utilizing these resources for the benefit of a specific political entity or for electoral advantage constitutes the misappropriation of state assets. Third, from a legal standpoint, PSM’s content is considered state-published material. TM emphasized that PSM must therefore uphold a higher standard of impartiality than private media outlets, noting that "this is because it speaks in its capacity as a state institution."

The report published by Transparency Maldives (TM) calls for the repeal of the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Act (Act No. 16/2025) and the drafting of new legislation in consultation with media stakeholders. It emphasizes that this process must take into account the joint statement issued by TM and 20 other organizations in August 2025, the legal analysis conducted by the Centre for Law and Democracy in October 2025, and the recommendations made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in September 2025. The report further states that the new legal framework should maintain a clear distinction between media self-regulation and broadcasting regulation, while establishing an independent regulator free from the influence of the government or parliamentary majorities. Additionally, it asserts that any penalties imposed must align with international standards of press freedom.