Understanding the Allegations Against Former Inmate
On Saturday, September 12, the Attorney General at the Fes Court of Appeal addressed the circumstances surrounding a complaint lodged by an inmate through his legal representative. This matter was brought to light by one of the lawyers during a press conference, who noted that no investigation had been initiated regarding the complaint. In a clarifying statement, the Public Prosecution affirmed that an inquiry into the allegations had indeed commenced. A representative from the prosecution visited the correctional facility on three separate occasions to listen to the complainant, but the case was temporarily shelved due to the complainant's refusal to provide any statements regarding his claims.
The Nature of the Complaint: Extortion and Threats
The background of this case dates back to June 23, 2025, when the individual, who was then an inmate at Ras El Ma local prison, filed a complaint against several persons, alleging extortion and threats of imprisonment during the 2021 electoral campaign. The Public Prosecution reported that they promptly responded to the complaint, sending a deputy attorney general to the prison to hear the complainant's claims and request any supporting evidence that might substantiate the allegations.
However, the first attempt to interview the complainant on August 8, 2025, was met with his declaration of fatigue, leading to a lack of testimony. A second attempt on August 11 resulted in a similar outcome, as the complainant insisted he was not feeling well and wished to consult with his legal counsel before proceeding. A third attempt on August 17 was also unsuccessful, as the complainant declared he was on a hunger strike and refused to discuss his claims.
The Public Prosecution characterized this situation as indicative of a “prompt response” to the complaint, juxtaposed against the complainant's hesitance to provide any testimony or clarification, raising questions about the underlying motives. Ultimately, due to the inability to hear from the complainant after three visits by the prosecution's representative, the investigation was linked to the availability of his statements. The prosecution noted that the complaint lacked specific details and evidence necessary to support the claims made.
Consequently, on August 29, 2025, the Public Prosecution decided to temporarily shelve the complaint due to the complainant's unwillingness to pursue it further, despite notifying him of this decision, which he refused to acknowledge.
The matter resurfaced on July 14, 2026, when the complainant's defense team requested the reopening of the complaint. After reviewing the request, the prosecution concluded that it did not present any new elements that would warrant overturning the decision to temporarily shelve the case, particularly in relation to the evidence supporting the allegations, despite previous opportunities afforded to the complainant to present such information.
New developments arose when the defense’s press conference revealed additional details regarding the complaint that had not previously been disclosed. In light of this information, the Attorney General announced the intent to continue the investigation into the matter, exercising their legal authority to pursue the case and take appropriate legal actions based on the findings of the inquiry.
This announcement serves as a response to claims made during the press conference regarding the purported lack of investigation into the complaint. The Public Prosecution reiterated that they initiated inquiry processes promptly upon receiving the complaint, while the emergence of new details from the defense opens the avenue for further investigation into the allegations raised and the potential legal consequences thereof.
As reported by hnews.ma.
