The High Court has thrown out the case submitted by the Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) seeking to annul the "gag order" issued by the Criminal Court, which prohibited any discussion regarding a video documentary produced by the "Adhadhu" newspaper.

In the case submitted to the High Court, MJA stated that it is not evident under which article of the Criminal Procedure Code the Criminal Court issued the order. Therefore, MJA argued that the order was issued in violation of Article 42 and Article 56 of the Constitution. MJA also highlighted that the order contradicts the Supreme Court precedent set in the case of Ahmed Ismail v. Latheefa Ali Hassan.

MJA noted that while the Criminal Court's order is directed at all Maldivian citizens, the order stipulates that from the moment it is issued, citizens discussing the "Aisha" documentary would be deemed to have committed an act of contempt of court. However, MJA stated that in addition to this being a decision that violates Article 44 of the Constitution, the order is formulated in a way that denies the public the right to clarify or understand its contents.

MJA stated that there is no law passed in accordance with Articles 16, 68, and 69 of the Constitution that restricts fundamental rights to grant the court the power to issue such a broad order. Consequently, MJA declared the Criminal Court's order to be unlawful.

Given that the Criminal Court's order is not endorsed by the Prosecutor General, and considering that the state has previously taken a specific stance and advocated in courts regarding similar matters, MJA argued that the order contradicts the state's established policies on prosecution in criminal cases.

While the case submitted by MJA to the High Court on the 11th of this month was rejected and thrown out, the decision made today by High Court Registrar Mariyam Khoorsheedha not to accept the case stated that the Criminal Procedure Code allows for the appeal of judgments, orders, and pre-trial decisions issued by courts with criminal jurisdiction. However, the decision also specified that the right to submit such an appeal is granted only to the parties involved in the case to which the judgment, court order, or decision relates.

The Registrar stated that upon examining the appeal form submitted by MJA and its accompanying documents, the appealed Criminal Court order is an injunction instructing parties to refrain from acting in a certain manner until the court decides otherwise, in an ongoing case where the Prosecutor General's Office has levied charges of Qazaf (false accusation) under the Penal Code against Hussain Fiyaz Moosa of Athamaage, Th. Vilufushi, and Hassan Mohamed of M. Rabarumaage. The Registrar's decision to reject the case further noted that the submitted documents do not indicate that MJA is a party involved in the case to which the order relates.

Therefore, referencing the Criminal Procedure Code, the Registrar's decision concluded that since MJA is not a party involved in the case concerning the appealed order, they do not possess the right to appeal it, and thus the case submitted by MJA cannot be accepted by the court.