Maldivian High Commissioner’s Visa Remarks Spark Diplomatic Row, Opposition Questions Breach of Protocol
Colombo — Remarks made by the Maldivian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, Masood Imad, criticising Sri Lanka’s visa regime and immigration practices have triggered a diplomatic controversy, with the Maldivian opposition accusing him of breaching established diplomatic protocol and undermining bilateral relations.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has submitted a formal question to Foreign Minister Dr. Abdulla Khaleel, seeking clarification on the conduct of the High Commissioner following what it describes as “irresponsible and undiplomatic public statements.” In unusually blunt language, senior MDP figures have publicly condemned Masood’s actions, with one opposition lawmaker describing his conduct as reckless and unprofessional—remarks that have drawn wide attention on Maldivian political platforms.
Interview That Sparked the Controversy
The controversy stems from an interview Masood gave to Sri Lanka’s state-run Daily News, in which he openly criticised the Sri Lankan visa process for Maldivian nationals. In the interview, the High Commissioner alleged discriminatory treatment by Sri Lankan immigration officials, describing the process as “stepmotherly” and questioning whether racial bias existed in favour of “white people.” He further claimed that visa agents appeared to receive preferential treatment, insinuating the existence of corrupt financial incentives.
While concerns regarding visa administration are not uncommon between neighbouring states, diplomats note that such grievances are traditionally raised through bilateral channels rather than aired publicly in domestic media.
Masood escalated the issue further by warning that the Maldivian government could consider revising its visa policy for Sri Lankan professionals if the situation did not improve—comments that were widely interpreted in Colombo as a diplomatic threat rather than a policy observation.
Opposition Reaction in Malé
MDP parliamentarian Meekail Ahmed Naseem took to social media platform X to condemn the High Commissioner’s remarks as “thoughtless” and damaging to Maldives–Sri Lanka relations. He called for Masood’s immediate recall and formally summoned Foreign Minister Khaleel to explain whether the government endorsed the statements made in Colombo.
In his parliamentary question, Meekail warned that publicly criticising a host country’s internal administrative processes and issuing retaliatory warnings violated the basic principles of diplomacy, particularly the obligation of envoys to refrain from interfering in domestic political discourse.
Meeting with Sri Lankan Opposition Figures Raises Further Questions
Concerns deepened after it emerged that Masood had met with Namal Rajapaksa, a senior figure in the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) and son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, shortly after the interview was published. The meeting was publicly disclosed by Namal himself on X, prompting questions in Malé over the High Commissioner’s political judgment.
Diplomats point out that while engagement with a host country’s political actors is not unusual, high-profile meetings with opposition figures during a period of diplomatic friction—especially when publicised—can be perceived as political signalling rather than routine engagement.
Silence from the Foreign Ministry
Despite the growing controversy, the Maldivian Foreign Ministry has yet to issue an official statement clarifying its position. Repeated attempts by local media to contact the ministry’s media unit have reportedly gone unanswered since Thursday, leaving uncertainty over whether Masood’s remarks reflect official policy or personal opinion.
This silence has further fuelled speculation within diplomatic circles and opposition ranks, with critics arguing that failure to distance the government from the remarks risks institutionalising a breach of diplomatic norms.
Diplomatic Norms Under Scrutiny
Experienced diplomats in both Colombo and Malé have privately criticised Masood’s conduct, describing his public remarks and political engagements as “alien to diplomacy.” They warn that such actions risk unnecessarily straining relations between two neighbouring Indian Ocean states that have historically enjoyed close ties in trade, tourism, education, and people-to-people exchanges.
“Diplomacy is about restraint,” one senior regional diplomat observed. “If every administrative grievance is turned into a media confrontation, bilateral relationships become transactional and fragile.”
Broader Implications
Sri Lanka and the Maldives share deep economic and social links, particularly in tourism, professional mobility, and regional maritime cooperation. Analysts caution that politicising visa administration—especially through public media platforms—could invite reciprocal measures and complicate regional cooperation at a time of broader Indian Ocean strategic uncertainty.
Whether the Maldivian government chooses to defend, clarify, or quietly walk back the High Commissioner’s remarks remains to be seen. For now, the episode has become a case study in how quickly diplomatic protocol can unravel when grievances are aired publicly rather than resolved behind closed doors.