Mandhy violated the dignity of President’s son, rules Civil Court

The Civil Court on Sunday ruled that Mariyam ‘Mandhy’ Zubair, a senior activist from the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), violated the dignity of one of President Dr. Mohamed Muizzu and First Lady Sajidha Mohamed’s children with comments she made during a rally back in March.

During a rally held by the MDP in Male’ City back in March, Mandhy alleged that President Muizzu made the decision last year to ban vaping in the Maldives “because one of Sajidha’s children got caught vaping”.

A day later, Sajidha said through a legal representative that the remarks – which called false - refer to her then-16-year-old son, and that she plans on pursuing legal action.

Sajidha has filed cases against Mandhy, the MDP and MDP chairperson Fayyaz Ismail at both the Civil Court and the Family Court over the remarks, accusing them of violating dignity of her son, endangering his safety, causing him mental distress, and harming his studies and future prospects.

On Sunday, the Civil Court established that Mandhy’s comments violated the dignity of the First Couple’s son, and that they reserve the right to sue for possible damages.

But the court found there’s no basis to make either the MDP or Fayyaz take responsibility for the comments.

Sajidha had also asked the court to order them to issue a public apology for the comments. But the court decided on Sunday that there’s no legal basis to issue such an order.

In previous statements, MDP said Mandhy did not name a specific child and nor do her remarks violate the dignity of a child.

On early March 17, a couple of days after the rally, Mandhy was attacked with engine oil by two individuals who followed her as she drove her motorcycle home. The police arrested the driver on March 27 and later released him.

Mandhy is also under criminal investigation by the police over her remarks at the rally – an investigation that the police said was initiated at the request of the Children's Ombudsperson's Office – a claim that the office refuted in a statement on April 21. Sajidha’s legal team also clarified the same day that the criminal investigation had nothing to do with her, and that they were only pursuing civil action.