Mushfiq Mohamed
Cases- Location of case in SG report
- 2021-088-003
- Relevant SG report
- Year of the report
- 2021
- From Country
- Country Geolocation
Latitude: 3.202778
Longitude: 73.22068
- Country Geolocation (linked Cases)
- Maldives
- From Region
- UN body that raised the case prior to the SG report
- UN Special Procedures: Thematic
- UN Special Procedures: UN Special Procedures - General
- Dates of prior UN action
- 7 November 2019
- Type of record
- Named individual
- Gender
- Male
- Type of rights defended
- Civil/political rights
- Religious freedom
- Reported trigger of reprisal
The case of human rights organization Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) was included in the 2018 report of the Secretary-General196 on allegations of an investigation following participation by its members in an NGO side event in the margins of the June 2017 Human Rights Council, and for the exercise of their freedom of expression on Twitter (MDV 3/2018).197 Some of the below updates on the situation of the MDN and its members were not reported previously due to fear of further retaliation at the time. 88. On 7 November 2019, special procedures mandate holders addressed the Government’s decision to dissolve the MDN following the 2016 publication of a report on radicalization on its website. They also raised concern about the online harassment, intimidation, threats and death threats against its members, including Ms. Shahindha Ismail, Ms. Azra Naseem, and Mr. Mushfiq Mohamed (MDV 1/2019). On 15 January 2020, the Government responded, stating that the decision to dissolve the NGO was not reached arbitrarily but after completion of due process, including a thorough and impartial investigation concluding that the report had content that intentionally sought to mock the tenets of Islam. The Government highlighted its renewed efforts in combatting religious extremism in its quest to maintain a modern liberal society while balancing religious values.198 According to information received by OHCHR, in August 2020, the MDN filed a suit against the reportedly arbitrary closing of its organization at the Maldives Civil Court. As of May 2021, the case was ongoing. 89. It was reported to OHCHR that, following the MDN’s presentation of a joint submission to the November 2020 UPR of the Maldives,199 the NGO and some of its members were the target of another coordinated media and on-line vilification campaign, including threats. They were portrayed as “anti-Islamic”, “blasphemous”, “promoting extremist ideology”, and as a “threat to the nation”. Some posts contained threatening language such as “Blood is boiling...teeth are clenching...Fists are shaking”. Due to the continued serious threats, MDN’s members Ms. Shahindha Ismail, Ms. Azra Naseem, Mr. Mushfiq Mohamed and Mr. Leevan Sharif have relocated abroad.
- Engagement with UN body
- UN Human Rights Council: UN Human Rights Council - General
- Dates of engagement
- June 2017, November 2020
- Type of attempted engagement
- Participation in meeting on UN premises
- Dates of mentioned reprisals
- 2017, 2016,
- Reprisal information
The case of human rights organization Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN) was included in the 2018 report of the Secretary-General196 on allegations of an investigation following participation by its members in an NGO side event in the margins of the June 2017 Human Rights Council, and for the exercise of their freedom of expression on Twitter (MDV 3/2018).197 Some of the below updates on the situation of the MDN and its members were not reported previously due to fear of further retaliation at the time. 88. On 7 November 2019, special procedures mandate holders addressed the Government’s decision to dissolve the MDN following the 2016 publication of a report on radicalization on its website. They also raised concern about the online harassment, intimidation, threats and death threats against its members, including Ms. Shahindha Ismail, Ms. Azra Naseem, and Mr. Mushfiq Mohamed (MDV 1/2019). On 15 January 2020, the Government responded, stating that the decision to dissolve the NGO was not reached arbitrarily but after completion of due process, including a thorough and impartial investigation concluding that the report had content that intentionally sought to mock the tenets of Islam. The Government highlighted its renewed efforts in combatting religious extremism in its quest to maintain a modern liberal society while balancing religious values.198 According to information received by OHCHR, in August 2020, the MDN filed a suit against the reportedly arbitrary closing of its organization at the Maldives Civil Court. As of May 2021, the case was ongoing. 89. It was reported to OHCHR that, following the MDN’s presentation of a joint submission to the November 2020 UPR of the Maldives,199 the NGO and some of its members were the target of another coordinated media and on-line vilification campaign, including threats. They were portrayed as “anti-Islamic”, “blasphemous”, “promoting extremist ideology”, and as a “threat to the nation”. Some posts contained threatening language such as “Blood is boiling...teeth are clenching...Fists are shaking”. Due to the continued serious threats, MDN’s members Ms. Shahindha Ismail, Ms. Azra Naseem, Mr. Mushfiq Mohamed and Mr. Leevan Sharif have relocated abroad.
- Types of reprisals suffered
- Administrative reprisal
- Defamation / Defamation campaign
- Threats/Intimidations (incl. "fear of reprisal")
- Alleged/likely perpetrators
- Both state and non-state actors
- Was the reprisal based on new legislation?
- No
- Does the report make general comment about country’s environment for engagement with UN?
- No
- Government response dates
- 12 August 2021
- Government response content
Regarding the MDN, the Government referred to the detailed reply submitted to mandate holders on the decisions made concerning the report published by the MDN. The Government reiterated that the decision was not reached arbitrarily, but after completing due process involving a thorough and comprehensive investigation by the Maldives Police Service.
- Was the case raised by a State at the UN?
- No
- Is the country cited for a "pattern of reprisal" in the context of this case?
- No
- Is a pattern of reprisals mentioned otherwise in the context of this case?
- No
- Does the report cite "self-censorship" as an issue in the context of this case?
- No
- How many times has the case been followed up in subsequent SG reports?
- 0