An emergency motion presented to the People’s Majlis claiming the use of a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) and excessive force by police during the recent “Lootuvaifi” demonstration has been quickly dismissed by the government-dominated People’s Majlis.

The proposal, put forth by MP Meekail Ahmed Naseem of the South Galolhu constituency during the session on Monday, aimed to start a formal discussion regarding the government's implementation of crowd control tactics that have been broadly criticized as excessive and perilous. Notwithstanding the gravity of the claims, the motion was defeated by a tally of 40 to 12, as leading members of the ruling People's National Congress (PNC) united to protect the administration from examination.

The motion states that law enforcement employed LRAD, a disputed sonic weapon, to disperse a peaceful gathering arranged by the primary opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) on Friday night without any prior notice. LRADs, capable of producing intense sound waves, are recognized for inflicting significant auditory and psychological harm, such as hearing loss and trauma. Global health organizations have voiced major worries regarding their safety and legality in civilian settings.

The motion also underscored a significant absence of transparency, as no safety guidelines or operational protocols for LRAD deployment were disclosed prior to its implementation. The lack of these disclosures poses significant legal and ethical concerns regarding the legality of the device's usage.

In spite of increasing backlash from human rights advocates and parts of the public, the government has stayed resolute. The police assert that their actions conform to legal standards, a justification that has failed to alleviate rising anger regarding what many perceive as the government's intensifying repression of dissent.

The ruling party, by outright rejecting the motion, has communicated a clear message that it is unwilling to consider accountability, even when confronted with credible allegations of violence supported by the state. This choice heightens concerns that the Maldives is descending further into a situation where dissent is penalized, and violence is prioritized as the initial, not the final, option.

The rejection of discussing the deployment of a weapon intended for military warfare against defenseless civilians signifies a disturbing point in the nation’s democratic progress. In a framework intended to protect the public, silence and denial have transformed into instruments of authority.