Former Home Minister Umar Naseer has filed a case against Channel 13 and state broadcaster Public Service Media with Maldives Broadcasting Commission. 

He filed the case over a speech given by MP Ibrahim Falaah’s speech, which the stations had broadcasted live. 

In his case, Naseer argued that Falaah’s remarks aimed at him constitute slander, and therefore fall within the broadcasting regulations regarding defamation. Said regulations state that if any material being broadcasted live constitute defamation in conduct or speech, then the live feed must be suspended. 

The former minister had reportedly filed defamation allegations against MP Falaah with the Maldives Police Service. 

In a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Naseer said that Falaah had, with no uncertainty, accused him of theft during his tenure as head of the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

“Take Umar Naseer, who had set up small companies that only lasted 10 or 15 days, just to funnel money out of the fund given to him to prepare for Minivan 50 events, let him take me to court. I will prove it. A theif calling other people thieves – it is pathetic” Falaah had said in his speech at a rally held by the ruling coalition. 

The laws on defamation places the burden of the proof on the party that makes the statement. 

On 20th March, the Anti-Corruption Commission had begun probing the case that Falaah had referred to. 

It began pursuing Umar Naseer for misappropriation in the celebratory activities for Maldives’ 50th year since its independence, held under the name Minivan 50 in 2015, which Umar Naseer presided over as Home Minister.

ACC has previously revealed that the ministry had neglected to abide by its request to disclose documents relevant to the investigation.

The commission had also pursued a case against Mohamed Hussein Shareef, a former minister at the President’s Office, for having hired New Port, a coffee shop opened in 2014, to provide catering services at an event held under the Minivan 50 banner.

The case was dismissed after it entered the Prosecutor General’s office over reported lack of evidence. The ACC claimed that the Ministry had hired a business that had little experience in catering to events with no evidence to suggest that a screening was done.