The recent alignment of former Presidents Mohamed Nasheed, Abdulla Yameen, and Ibrahim Mohamed Solih in the name of defending press freedom is a profound display of political opportunism. This sudden display of solidarity appears to be a calculated attempt to exploit public sentiment for political leverage, conveniently disregarding their own historical records of media suppression once they have lost the reins of power.
During President Nasheed’s administration, under the guise of democratic reform, military forces were deployed to seize control of state media, and independent outlets critical of the government faced intimidation and harassment. Similarly, the presidency of Abdulla Yameen is remembered as the darkest era for the Maldivian media. His administration utilized the Defamation Act to impose crippling financial penalties on media organizations and maintained a notorious record of arresting and mistreating journalists. Even under President Solih’s tenure, the legislative environment grew restrictive with the ratification of the Evidence Act, which compelled journalists to disclose their confidential sources. Furthermore, his administration witnessed incidents of police brutality against journalists covering opposition activities.
The reality remains that during the leadership of all three presidents, the Maldives saw a significant decline in international press freedom indices. Their current presence on a shared platform is less about principle and more about a strategic maneuver to regain political influence by manipulating public emotion. Press freedom should not be a convenient slogan used only when one is out of office; the historical record clearly demonstrates that these leaders are not the genuine champions of the free press they now claim to be.
