Maldives authorities have continued legal proceedings related to Adhadhu’s controversial “Aisha” documentary, with police and the courts citing concerns over serious allegations made against President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu.
According to court documents and local media reports, passports belonging to individuals connected to the case — including Adhadhu CEO Hussain Fiyaz Moosa, Editor Hassan Mohamed, and the woman featured in the documentary — have been withheld as part of the ongoing investigation. Authorities reportedly argued that the measures were necessary due to concerns that suspects involved in the case could leave the country while investigations remain active.
The Criminal Court has also issued a temporary order restricting the circulation and public discussion of the documentary while legal proceedings continue. Government officials and supporters have defended the decision as part of the normal judicial process aimed at protecting due process, personal reputation, and public order.
President Muizzu has strongly denied all allegations made in the documentary and reiterated that the judiciary operates independently from the executive branch. During a recent press conference, the President stated that all citizens are obligated to respect court orders issued under Maldivian law until cases are concluded through legal channels.
Government-aligned voices have argued that the investigation is not an attack on journalism itself, but rather a response to what authorities consider potentially unlawful accusations involving serious personal allegations. Homeland security officials and ministers have also publicly defended law enforcement’s authority to investigate allegations they believe may violate Maldivian criminal law.
The issue escalated after Maldives Police Service searched Adhadhu’s office under a court warrant and seized electronic devices for forensic investigation. Prosecutors later filed criminal charges related to Qazf, a criminal offense involving false accusations of unlawful sexual conduct under Islamic law.
Supporters of the administration argue that freedom of expression does not exempt individuals or organizations from legal accountability, especially in cases involving allegations that could seriously damage reputations and public trust. Many government supporters on social media have also praised authorities for pursuing the matter through the courts rather than through direct executive action.
Meanwhile, opposition politicians, activists, and international press freedom organizations have criticized aspects of the investigation, raising concerns about media freedom and constitutional rights. Despite the criticism, the government continues maintaining that the matter is now before independent judicial institutions and should be resolved through the legal system.
