News Desk
The Maldivian government has submitted a major legislative package to the People’s Majlis amending Penal Code Law No. 9/2014. Introduced by MP Abdulla Rifau (Maafannu South constituency, PNC), the bill establishes genocide as a discrete offense under domestic criminal law while simultaneously creating new offenses targeting treason, acts against national economic security, and enhanced penalties for anti-Islamic activities.
Public commentary and domestic headline coverage have focused almost exclusively on the bill’s genocide provisions. However, legal experts note that the legislation carries far broader consequences, sweeping under its ambit national security, critical infrastructure, state economic interests, and expressions concerning foreign policy.
Translation of the Legislative Clauses
Statement of Purpose
Reason for Submission:
The purpose of submitting this bill on behalf of the Government is to amend Law No. 9/2014 (Penal Code of the Maldives) to codify genocide as a criminal offense and prescribe penalties in accordance with the international treaty on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to which the Maldives is a party; to amend the aforementioned Law to criminalise treason against the Maldivian State and acts harmful to the State’s economic security; and to increase penalties prescribed for acts contrary to Islam.
Sponsor: Member of Parliament Abdulla Rifau, Maafannu South Constituency.
Part 1: Genocide
(Inserting Chapter 150 into Law No. 9/2014)
Section 150. Codification of the Crime of Genocide
(a) A person commits an offense under the following conditions if they perform any of the following acts:
- Committing any of the following acts against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group:
- Killing members of such a group;
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of such a group;
- Deliberately and intentionally inflicting on such a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within such a group;
- Forcibly transferring children of such a group to another group.
- The act is committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, members of that group.
(b) Directly and publicly inciting the commission of the offense specified in subsection (a) constitutes an offense.
(c) In a prosecution under this Section, it shall not be a defense that the accused acted pursuant to an order of a superior or that the conduct was authorized by law.
(d) For the purposes of this Section, whether the perpetrator was a head of state, a public official, or a private individual, or whether the offense was committed in a state of war or otherwise, shall not be taken into account nor affect the determination of guilt.
(e) “Causing serious bodily or mental harm” includes acts of torture, rape, sexual assault, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
(f) “Conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction” includes depriving access to essential life necessities and resources such as food, clean water, medical treatment, and healthcare services, as well as systematic forced eviction from households and deprivation of shelter.
(g) “Forcibly transferring to another group” means coercing or threatening force, inflicting or creating fear of physical harm—including detention or preventing movement—to make a person or persons appear as belonging to a nation, ethnicity, race, or religion to which they do not belong.
(h) The offense described in subsection (a) is a Class 1 Felony.
(i) If the offense described in subsection (b) is committed by:
- The President, a Cabinet Minister, a Member of the People’s Majlis, a Judge, or a commander in the security services, it constitutes a Class 1 Felony.
- In all other circumstances, it constitutes a Class 2 Felony.
Part 2: Anti-Islamic Conduct
(Amending Section 617(b) of Law No. 9/2014)
Section 617. Classification
(b) If the offense specified in subsection (a) is committed:
- Premeditatedly, with the intent to generate hatred towards Islam among Maldivian citizens or to undermine religious unity, it constitutes a Class 4 Felony.
- In all other circumstances, it constitutes a Class 5 Felony.
Part 3: Acts Against Economic Security
(Inserting Chapter 630 into Law No. 9/2014)
Section 630. Acts Harmful to Economic Security
(a) A person commits an offense if they intentionally perform any of the following acts, knowing or recklessly disregarding that major damage may be caused to the State’s economy:
- Damaging critical infrastructure or a computer system connected to such infrastructure; or
- Interrupting an essential service, or obstructing the operation of a facility or system providing such service; or
- Undertaking any act intended to halt operations in a major revenue-generating sector of the State; and
- The act results in major damage to the State’s economy.
(b) “Critical infrastructure” refers to any property related to providing basic and public utility services such as water, electricity, transportation, and telecommunications services.
(c) “Computer system connected to critical infrastructure” shall carry the meaning defined under Section 250(l) of this Law.
(d) “Major economic damage” refers to disruption to the State’s economic activities or a decline in financial or economic stability resulting from damage to the State’s economic interests.
(e) Classification:
- If committed by a person holding a senior position in the State or Government, it constitutes a Class 2 Felony.
- In all other circumstances, it constitutes a Class 3 Felony.
Part 4: Treason Against the Maldivian State
(Inserting Chapter 730 into Law No. 9/2014)
Section 730. Treason Against the Maldivian State
(a) It is an offense for any Maldivian citizen to intentionally commit any of the following acts:
- Levying war against the Maldives; or
- Joining or assisting a party levying war against the Maldives; or
- Adhering to an enemy of the Maldives, giving them aid and comfort within or outside the Maldives.
(b) “Enemy” refers to foreigners who commit acts harmful to the independence and sovereignty of the Maldives, and Maldivians who join them in such acts.
(c) “Providing assistance to an enemy” means executing any act of assistance to an enemy in any capacity in committing an act harmful to the independence and sovereignty of the Maldives.
(d) The offense specified in subsection (a) is a Class 1 Felony.
(e) Additional Penalty: If a Maldivian citizen is convicted of an offense under subsection (a), in addition to the penalty imposed under subsection (d), they shall be permanently barred from appointment to any public office or employment within the Maldivian State.
Commencement
(Section 5)
This Act shall come into force upon its passage, assent, and publication in the Government Gazette.
Analysis: Compliance Imperatives vs. Broad Criminalization Risks
The bill’s dual framing highlights a tension between long-overdue compliance with international treaty commitments and domestic statutory drafting that critics fear could restrict public expression.
- International Obligations and the ICJ Interventions
Attorney General Ahmed Usham defended the bill’s genocide provisions on social media, emphasizing that domestic legal alignment is a long-standing requirement under international law.
Key aspects of the Attorney General’s position include:
- The 42-Year Delay: The Maldives acceded to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on April 24, 1984. Article V of the Genocide Convention explicitly obligates signatory states to enact necessary domestic legislation to punish offenders. The Maldives has failed to satisfy this requirement for over four decades.
- Impact on ICJ Proceedings: The Maldives has formally intervened in two major cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
- The case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar regarding the genocide of Rohingya Muslims.
- The case filed by South Africa against Israel regarding allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Legal Standing Risk: AG Usham argued that demanding foreign nations honor the Genocide Convention while failing to domesticate its core provisions undermines the credibility of the Maldives’ legal submissions at the ICJ.
- Speech Restrictions and Economic Provisions
While the government portrays the bill as compliance with international human rights treaties, local analysts point to potential legal vulnerabilities created by the statutory text:
- Overbroad Incitement Provisions: Section 150(b) criminalises direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Because the legal definition incorporates national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, legal observers caution that aggressive political rhetoric—including harsh public criticism directed against foreign states, military actions, or human rights violations—could be reinterpreted under domestic law as unlawful incitement against a foreign national or ethnic group.
- Economic Sabotage Clause: The inclusion of Chapter 630 introduces severe penalties for actions that disrupt major revenue sectors or public utilities. Broad definitions surrounding “major economic damage” and “disruption to economic stability” create potential exposure for civil disobedience, union activity, labor strikes, or protests affecting key national sectors like tourism and maritime transport.
The broad terms of Chapter 630 carry acute political resonance as opposition forces mobilise against the government’s flagship project: the 500-hectare Ras Malé urban development scheme, involving prominent Emirati developer Mohamed Alabbar (founder of Emaar Properties).
As public scrutiny over the commercial terms and extensive land leasing of the Ras Malé initiative intensifies, political strategists note clear parallels with the 2011–2012 opposition movement against GMR, the Indian infrastructure conglomerate contracted to develop Ibrahim Nasir International Airport. During the GMR controversy, nationalist framing, public protests, and deliberate economic disruptions served as primary levers to stall the project and weaken the sitting administration.
Under the broad statutory language of Chapter 630, deliberate opposition tactics that target major infrastructure—such as blockades of transport corridors, maritime interference near development sites, or organised industrial action targeting key revenue-generating sectors like tourism and port logistics—could readily fall under the umbrella of “acts harmful to economic security.”
Critics argue that by criminalising actions intended to “halt operations in a major revenue-generating sector” or those causing a “decline in financial or economic stability,” the clause equips the executive branch with an expansive statutory weapon. In effect, legitimate civil disobedience or political campaigning directed against mega-developments like Ras Malé risks being reclassified as state-level economic sabotage, effectively blunting political protest under the legal mandate of national economic protection.
By combining international treaty integration with expanded economic security and anti-treason mechanisms, the submitted bill significantly broadens state authority over national security and public discourse.
