The Maldives scored 39 out of 100 in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking 91st out of 182 countries in the latest assessment released by Transparency International.
The score represents a one-point increase from 2024, when the Maldives scored 38. Over the past five years, the country’s score has remained within a narrow range between 38 and 43, indicating little overall movement in perceived levels of corruption.
In response to the new ranking, Transparency Maldives said the stagnant score reflects persistent governance challenges. The organisation cited increasing centralisation of executive authority, reduced independence of oversight institutions, and shrinking civic space as structural issues contributing to corruption risks.
“From politicized appointments to opaque decision-making in state-owned enterprises, systemic vulnerabilities continue to undermine public trust and accountability,” the organisation stated.
Transparency Maldives warned that recent constitutional and legislative changes have concentrated authority within the executive, heightening the risk of state capture. It pointed to the 2024 anti-defection amendments, changes to the Judicature Act, the suspension of Supreme Court justices, and amendments affecting decentralisation laws as developments that weaken institutional checks and balances.
The group also raised concerns over amendments to the Anti-Corruption Commission Act and the Elections Commission Act that allow the President to appoint the President and Vice President of both commissions. It argued that such changes risk politicising oversight bodies and diminishing institutional impartiality.
Further concerns were raised over the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation enacted in September 2025, which established a new media oversight commission with three members directly appointed by the President. Transparency Maldives said this structure could create avenues for political influence over media regulation.
Environmental governance was also highlighted, including the dissolution of the Environmental Protection Agency and amendments allowing certain projects to bypass established Environmental Impact Assessment procedures.
The organisation described these developments as part of broader governance weaknesses that increase corruption vulnerabilities and reduce public accountability. It called for reforms to restore institutional independence, strengthen anti-corruption enforcement, protect civic space, and align national governance with international commitments.
The Anti-Corruption Commission responded separately, focusing on the nature of the index itself. The ACC clarified that the Corruption Perceptions Index measures perceived levels of corruption rather than actual incidents, noting that the ranking is compiled from independent studies.
The Commission highlighted that the Maldives’ 2025 score was based on three data sources: Global Insight Country Risk Ratings, the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, and Varieties of Democracy. It noted that these studies do not directly measure the extent of corruption and that the Maldives’ ranking was derived from a limited number of sources compared to many other countries.
The ACC stated that national discussion and public awareness are necessary to ensure that future scores reflect what it described as a meaningful and accurate outcome.
The Commission also outlined its ongoing efforts to strengthen the National Integrity System, develop a National Anti-Corruption Policy in collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and participate in international initiatives measuring the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies.
While Transparency Maldives framed the 2025 score as evidence of structural governance concerns requiring reform, the ACC’s response centred on the methodology and perception-based nature of the index.
