Public Prosecution's Swift Action on Allegations
The Attorney General at the Court of Appeal in Fes confirmed that the Public Prosecution acted promptly in response to a complaint filed by an inmate regarding allegations of extortion and threats made during the 2021 electoral campaign. This statement effectively dismisses claims suggesting that no investigation had been initiated into the matter. In a clarifying statement, the Attorney General explained that the individual in question, who was a resident of the local prison in Ras El Ma at the time, submitted his complaint on June 23, 2025, through his legal counsel. The complaint involved allegations related to extortion and threats of imprisonment linked to the electoral campaign.
Investigation and Inmate's Response
The Public Prosecution, keen to address the complaint, initiated an investigation. The Deputy Attorney General visited the prison on three separate occasions to hear from the complainant, enabling him to elaborate on his claims and present any supporting evidence. According to the source, the first visit took place on August 8, 2025, where the complainant expressed his unwillingness to make any statements due to feeling fatigued. The second visit occurred on August 11 of the same year, during which he also declined to provide any statements, citing a lack of recovery and his anticipation for a consultation with his lawyer.
During the third visit, dated August 17, 2025, the individual stated that he refrained from making any statements regarding the complaint due to his participation in a hunger strike. The Public Prosecution affirmed that its handling of the complaint was immediate; however, the complainant's refusal to provide any statements or clarification raised questions regarding the purpose of his actions. The refusal to speak, despite the Attorney General's representative visiting three times to take his statements and prepare reports, meant that the continuation of the investigation hinged on the complainant’s assertions, especially as the complaint lacked sufficient details and evidence to substantiate the claims made.
Consequently, on August 29, 2025, the Public Prosecution decided to temporarily archive the complaint due to the complainant's unwillingness to affirm it, with a notification sent to him about this decision. However, he declined to receive this notification, as stated in the report. Further developments occurred on July 14, 2026, when the complainant's defense team submitted a request to the Public Prosecution to unarchive the complaint. Nevertheless, upon reviewing the request, it became evident that it lacked any new elements to justify such action, particularly evidence supporting the allegations, despite multiple opportunities provided to the complainant to present them.
Based on this assessment, the decision to archive the complaint remained in place, with the complainant being informed accordingly. In a recent development, the Attorney General indicated that the Public Prosecution gained insight into additional details related to the complaint, which were not previously included, through statements made by the complainant's defense during a press conference. The report concluded by affirming that the Public Prosecution intends to continue its investigation into the complaint and will take necessary legal actions based on the outcomes of its inquiries.
As reported by journal24.ma.
