The Human Rights Commission of Maldives (HRCM) has launched an investigation into the police’s deployment of a powerful sonic weapon, known as the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), during an opposition protest held by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on October 3.

MDP organized the demonstration to protest what they allege is the systematic looting of the country by President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu’s administration. The use of the LRAD by police to disperse the protest has triggered widespread concern, particularly over its potential harm to civilians.

When approached by RaajjeMV, HRCM’s Public Relations Officer, Mohamed Nashid Hassan, confirmed that an investigation is underway. However, the commission has declined to disclose any details regarding the scope or methodology of the inquiry, citing the ongoing nature of the case.

The LRAD, which emits high-decibel sound levels exceeding those of a jet engine, reportedly affected not only the protest participants but also nearby residents, including children. Witnesses noted the disruptive and distressing impact the device had on families living in the area.

Despite its apparent deployment, there remains no public documentation outlining standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the use of sonic weapons by Maldivian police. While the use of pepper spray, tear gas, and batons is covered under existing SOPs, the absence of publicly available guidelines for LRAD use raises significant transparency and accountability concerns.

Following mounting public backlash, the Maldives Police Service (MPS) has since issued a statement claiming that the use of force during the protest adhered to legal frameworks and operational protocols. However, the statement offered no clarification on the specific rules governing the use of the LRAD.

HRCM has yet to provide clarity on what aspects of the incident it will scrutinize, or whether its investigation will also address the broader implications of deploying such technology against civilians in a densely populated area.

As questions continue to mount, the silence from both law enforcement and oversight bodies leaves the public with little assurance that the deployment of potentially harmful crowd-control measures is being handled with the necessary oversight or care.