The Ordinary Criminal Chamber of the Appeals Court in Fes has upheld the initial ruling against the Moroccan rapper Jawad Asradi, popularly known as "Bouz Flow," who was sentenced to three months in suspended prison. This decision was made public, and it concluded the appeal process, accepting the appeal on procedural grounds while affirming the initial sentence in all its aspects, including the obligation for the accused to bear the legal costs.
Previously, the Criminal Chamber at the Primary Court of Sefrou had issued a ruling in December last year, convicting the artist to a three-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 2,000 dirhams, alongside an order to return the computer used for his artistic work. The case originated from the arrest of the artist on November 20 of the previous year, where he was charged based on content from several of his musical works that were deemed to contain phrases that fall under legally punishable acts.
Charges were leveled against the artist for insulting an organized body and public officials during the performance of their duties, due to statements that the public prosecutor considered to be damaging to the dignity and reputation of those involved. During the judicial proceedings, the primary court granted the accused provisional release in exchange for a bail set at 100,000 dirhams; however, he chose not to pay it, resulting in his continued detention until the judicial ruling was issued.
This appellate decision brings a definitive conclusion to the legal proceedings regarding the case at the Appeals Court, as it reaffirms the initial ruling in its entirety—a case that has garnered significant attention from both the artistic community and legal observers alike. The ruling underscores that the judiciary has decisively resolved the matter regarding Bouz Flow, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding the relationship between art and law.
The artist's refusal to post bail has affected his standing in the case, illustrating the limits of freedom of expression within artistic works. The imposition of legal costs is a standard procedure in such cases, and the conviction was based on content that the court deemed illegal, reinforcing the idea that judicial processes operate in accordance with the law without exceptions. The final ruling effectively closes this case at the level of the Appeals Court, confirming the strength of the file from a legal perspective.
As reported by ar.hibapress.com.
