Abdelatif Ouahbi, the Minister of Justice, stated that the ministry has engaged with the amendments proposed by parliamentarians, which aim to enhance the contents of the draft Criminal Procedure Law both in form and substance. “In total, there were 1,384 amendments, a significant portion of which were positively addressed,” he affirmed, noting that “the remaining proposals were not accepted, as many of them related to drafting suggestions or substantive amendments that contradicted the foundational aspects of the text.”
During the presentation of draft Law No. 03.23 to amend and supplement Law No. 22.01 related to the Criminal Procedure, before the House of Representatives in a legislative session, Ouahbi explained that “the matter pertains to either the references for reform or pure legal technical justifications, or the tremendous human and material resources required for implementing some of them.”
According to the Minister of Justice, his ministry has been diligent since discussions of this project commenced before the Justice, Legislation, and Human Rights Committee in the House of Representatives “to record all observations and proposals made, with the aim of formulating a comprehensive and integrated vision for improving the national procedural system, leading to a version that achieves the objectives of this project, in line with modern theories of procedural criminal systems adopted by most comparative legislations.”
The minister noted, “This has indeed been achieved, as the proposed amendments to the materials of the draft law have improved the text to keep pace with ongoing developments and establish effective procedural justice, aimed at overcoming the issues posed by practical application in many procedures that experience has shown to be ineffective in achieving criminal justice and inadequate in combating crime in all its forms.”
He pointed out that “the most significant amendments accepted by the ministry and approved by the committee include the rephrasing of certain expressions to enhance the text and achieve coherence with the other provisions contained in the project.” Additionally, “it enhances the protection of victims of human trafficking by stipulating a series of measures aimed at safeguarding their safety and providing essential services, including necessary medical and psychological assistance, accommodation, and informing them of their legal rights, as well as their right to seek compensation for the harm they suffered.”
The government official also emphasized “enabling victims of human trafficking to benefit from a recovery and reflection period, in line with the Kingdom’s international commitments in this context,” adding “the necessity of respecting legal guarantees during the investigation procedures.”
Furthermore, the Minister of Justice addressed “the inclusion of additional provisions aimed at enhancing the rights of defense during the preliminary investigation stages and promoting the use of modern technology in various legal procedures,” highlighting “the stipulation that the public prosecution cannot attend court deliberations and that the possibility of restoration applies concerning the fine penalty, upon its payment,” along with “a clear stipulation that silence shall not be considered as implicit acknowledgment of the charges against a person in custody.”
Ouahbi stated that “this legislative initiative undoubtedly represents an important step towards modernizing the national legal framework and responding to expectations and aspirations,” stressing “the commitment to advocate for it during the next phase of discussions before the House of Councillors, following the approval of the first parliamentary chamber.” He added: “We will work responsibly to communicate its updates and coordinate with all stakeholders involved in implementing its provisions, believing that practice remains the true test for the optimal application of its content.”
The minister also remarked that “the importance of the Criminal Procedure Law increases with its complexities and the connections of the areas it regulates, which touch two fields that often engage stakeholders in legal debates and confrontations while seeking to attain both.” According to him, “on one hand, there is the pursuit of verifying the occurrence of a crime and apprehending its perpetrators and prosecuting them, and on the other hand, there is the search for exoneration and what that requires in terms of ensuring the conditions and guarantees of a fair trial.”
Abdelatif Ouahbi emphasized that “the equation is difficult and requires legal rules that achieve balance between the severity of crime and its threat to the security and safety of citizens and their property, on one side, and the protection of individual fundamental rights as established by international human rights covenants and the Kingdom’s constitution on the other.” He continued: “We are not dealing with an ordinary law in terms of its content and functions; it is a constitution of criminal justice, if the description is correct. As much as it equips law enforcement agencies to confront the threat of crime, apprehend perpetrators, and prosecute them, it equally empowers parties in the criminal dispute to defend their rights and claims. It is a coin with two sides,” adding: “The process of crafting such laws represents a pivotal and distinctive moment in the democratic journey of states.”
The speaker confirmed the government’s awareness of “the value and significance of this text” and added: “I have followed its preparation paths and the reasons for its failure to pass in previous governments, and I have been keen to consider the ongoing discussions surrounding it and to engage in extensive discussions with all stakeholders involved with its provisions, including governmental, judicial, security, and professional entities. I opened the door for consultation with many constitutional institutions and bodies, such as the National Human Rights Council and the Economic, Social, and Environmental Council.”
The same official criticized some readings of the project since its introduction to the legislative process, considering that they “unfortunately sometimes bore the hallmark of ‘political subjectivity’ which may be acceptable given different references and ideologies and the anticipated limits of reform, but it is unacceptable if it is used to hinder the public good and create marginal discussions about a law that does not allow fragmentation between sectoral interests or political considerations.”
