Maldives Independent: Maldive: Friday, 6Th June 2025.
Not a single ministry met minimum requirements
Government transparency in
the Maldives has hit a critical low with systematic failures across the
decade-old right to information regime, according to a damning new assessment.
Speaking on the Ithuru Vaahaka podcast by the Maldives Independent, Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed described the implementation of the Right to Information Act as “in the red” based on the comprehensive RTI assessment released on May 5.
Of 30 offices surveyed, only 11 met the minimum requirements for proactive disclosure under the RTI Act. These included seven local councils and a handful of judicial and independent institutions.
“Not a single ministry or office of the government is included at zero,” Ahid confirmed.
Conducted in partnership with the Centre for Law and Democracy and Transparency Maldives, the survey revealed troubling failures.
Key findings:
This bureaucratic dysfunction has real consequences for citizens like environmental advocate Afrah Ismail.
Joining the Information Commissioner on the podcast, Afrah recounted his own experience with the planning and infrastructure ministry after seeking detailed plans for the Ameenee Magu street-scaping project following the removal of mature trees along the capital’s thoroughfare.
“I sought the information after seeing that the government was uprooting decades-old trees planted on Ameenee Magu, one of which was planted during a school programme by me,” Afrah said.
The ministry refused to provide the technical drawings and project plans. Afrah suspected the refusal was a delay tactic.
“I believe the contractor – Road Development Corporation – did not actually have the detailed plans and drawings at the time. They bought some time by refusing and making me run around, in order to produce the technical drawings and calculations,” he said.
His case highlighted a broader issue: refusals are often less about classified information and more about bureaucratic disarray or lack of preparedness.
Commissioner Ahid attributed the deeper issue to an outdated and problematic mindset among state officials – one that views access to public information as a privilege rather than a right.
“State powers originate from the citizens,” Ahid said, stressing that “all information collected, produced, and maintained by the state belongs to the people”. The only valid reasons to withhold information are exceptional cases, such as national security or protection of private data, he noted.
Many information officers still approach their duties with the wrong premise, Ahid added.
“Often, they ask whether a piece of information should be disclosed. That’s the wrong question. The real question is: does this information fall under a legal exemption?” he said, clarifying that “embarrassment or inconvenience to the government is not a valid reason to withhold it.”
The RTI Act made it mandatory for public authorities to respond to requests within 21 days, with a 30-day extension available only under specific conditions. Information may be withheld only if it is classified by law, if it threatens national security or economic management, or compromises parliamentary or judicial immunity.
Despite these legal requirements, compliance has plummeted. In 2024, the Information Commissioner’s Office registered 566 cases, up 61 percent from the previous year. The majority of these complaints concerned government agencies that failed to respond at all.
The deterioration in transparency stands in stark contrast to President Dr Mohamed Muizzu’s campaign promises. During his 2023 presidential run, Muizzu criticized the former administration’s RTI record and pledged sweeping transparency reforms.
“All information will be available. Nothing will be withheld,” Muizzu declared at the time. “The public won’t need to beg for information.”
However, that promise has since unraveled. Over the past year, the Attorney General’s Office has frequently challenged the Information Commissioner’s rulings. In a high-profile case earlier this year, the government refused to disclose the names of 228 political appointees dismissed in October 2024, despite a formal order to do so.
Not a single ministry met minimum requirements
 |
| Artwork: Dosain |
Speaking on the Ithuru Vaahaka podcast by the Maldives Independent, Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed described the implementation of the Right to Information Act as “in the red” based on the comprehensive RTI assessment released on May 5.
Of 30 offices surveyed, only 11 met the minimum requirements for proactive disclosure under the RTI Act. These included seven local councils and a handful of judicial and independent institutions.
“Not a single ministry or office of the government is included at zero,” Ahid confirmed.
Conducted in partnership with the Centre for Law and Democracy and Transparency Maldives, the survey revealed troubling failures.
Key findings:
- Timeliness of responses: Only 38 percent of information requests were fully addressed within the legally mandated timeframe. While many authorities acknowledged receipt, the actual release of information often lagged if it arrived at all. Just 45 percent of requests resulted in full disclosure.
- Absence of RTI implementation plans: Not one of the public authorities surveyed had an RTI implementation plan in place. This lack of internal procedure has led to systemic delays and, in some cases, information requests being entirely lost. The report urges public bodies to create formal workflows to ensure efficiency and accountability.
- Weakest link: Proactive disclosure remains the most neglected obligation under the RTI framework. A major obstacle is the lack of adequate websites that meet the standards for transparency. Many councils and smaller agencies do not have functioning websites, and those that do often fail to update or organise information in an accessible way. The report called for investment in digital infrastructure as well as alternative means of disclosure where internet access is not feasible.
- Reluctance and fear: While officials claimed they faced no explicit pressure to withhold information, RTI practitioners and journalists told a different story. They reported frequent delays, evasive responses, and what appears to be a culture of fear or reluctance to disclose. Journalists, in particular, said they felt targeted, with deadlines often extended arbitrarily and without justification.
This bureaucratic dysfunction has real consequences for citizens like environmental advocate Afrah Ismail.
Joining the Information Commissioner on the podcast, Afrah recounted his own experience with the planning and infrastructure ministry after seeking detailed plans for the Ameenee Magu street-scaping project following the removal of mature trees along the capital’s thoroughfare.
“I sought the information after seeing that the government was uprooting decades-old trees planted on Ameenee Magu, one of which was planted during a school programme by me,” Afrah said.
The ministry refused to provide the technical drawings and project plans. Afrah suspected the refusal was a delay tactic.
“I believe the contractor – Road Development Corporation – did not actually have the detailed plans and drawings at the time. They bought some time by refusing and making me run around, in order to produce the technical drawings and calculations,” he said.
His case highlighted a broader issue: refusals are often less about classified information and more about bureaucratic disarray or lack of preparedness.
Commissioner Ahid attributed the deeper issue to an outdated and problematic mindset among state officials – one that views access to public information as a privilege rather than a right.
“State powers originate from the citizens,” Ahid said, stressing that “all information collected, produced, and maintained by the state belongs to the people”. The only valid reasons to withhold information are exceptional cases, such as national security or protection of private data, he noted.
Many information officers still approach their duties with the wrong premise, Ahid added.
“Often, they ask whether a piece of information should be disclosed. That’s the wrong question. The real question is: does this information fall under a legal exemption?” he said, clarifying that “embarrassment or inconvenience to the government is not a valid reason to withhold it.”
The RTI Act made it mandatory for public authorities to respond to requests within 21 days, with a 30-day extension available only under specific conditions. Information may be withheld only if it is classified by law, if it threatens national security or economic management, or compromises parliamentary or judicial immunity.
Despite these legal requirements, compliance has plummeted. In 2024, the Information Commissioner’s Office registered 566 cases, up 61 percent from the previous year. The majority of these complaints concerned government agencies that failed to respond at all.
The deterioration in transparency stands in stark contrast to President Dr Mohamed Muizzu’s campaign promises. During his 2023 presidential run, Muizzu criticized the former administration’s RTI record and pledged sweeping transparency reforms.
“All information will be available. Nothing will be withheld,” Muizzu declared at the time. “The public won’t need to beg for information.”
However, that promise has since unraveled. Over the past year, the Attorney General’s Office has frequently challenged the Information Commissioner’s rulings. In a high-profile case earlier this year, the government refused to disclose the names of 228 political appointees dismissed in October 2024, despite a formal order to do so.
.JPG)
.JPG)
