A Canadian court has convicted Moroccan YouTuber Hicham Girando of defamation and ordered him to pay over 164,000 Canadian dollars to the Casablanca-based lawyer Adil Saïd Lametiri. The ruling, issued on July 14, mandates Girando to pay damages that include moral, material, and punitive compensation. Additionally, a permanent injunction prohibits him from disseminating any defamatory content against Lametiri in the future, a ruling that remains in effect despite his appeal.
The case dates back to May 2023, when Girando launched a series of videos on social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, accusing Lametiri of serious accusations involving corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, and even collaboration with Algerian intelligence and the Corsican mafia. In these videos, he labeled Lametiri as “the pinnacle of corruption,” “the shark,” and “the corrupt lawyer.” This prompted Lametiri to issue a legal warning to Girando, which led to a lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court. In July 2023, Girando received a court order to cease his publications, yet he continued to broadcast his accusations, resulting in a later conviction for contempt of court in January 2024.
After a year and a half of inactivity, Girando resumed his campaigns in February 2025, just days before the trial. However, he did not attend to defend himself or substantiate his claims. The court convened the session in his absence, while Lametiri’s legal team, led by Claude Lamar, presented evidence that the court described as “irrefutable” to confirm the damages incurred by their client.
The court found that Girando acted recklessly and with ill intent, claiming to lead a team of investigators while actually spreading unfounded rumors drawn from blogs and unknown sources without verification. During his questioning, he admitted to failing to verify the information he published and showed no concern for its impact on Lametiri’s reputation. The court criticized his testimony as lacking credibility and reflecting serious negligence. Among the evidence Girando relied on were incomplete documents and cases that had been closed in Lametiri’s favor years prior, such as a disciplinary summons dating back to 2021.
The ruling clarified that Lametiri enjoyed a distinguished professional reputation, having practiced law for nearly 30 years, receiving commendations from the World Bank and the “Finances & Conseil Méditerranée” organization, which awarded him the title of “trusted expert.” Furthermore, several company directors provided testimonies in his favor. The court noted that the defamation caused lasting harm to his professional reputation, describing it as “the cornerstone of his career,” and that the damage done was difficult to rectify in a legal field that relies on reputation and trust.
The court highlighted that Girando’s videos garnered significant attention, amassing 1.1 million views on YouTube, accompanied by incendiary comments urging for Lametiri’s arrest, the seizure of his assets, and even calls for violence against him. These campaigns inflicted severe psychological distress on Lametiri, leading to feelings of isolation, anxiety, and depression. He required treatment following a panic attack and had to secure his home through a specialized agency at a cost of 9,514 Canadian dollars.
The court ordered Girando to compensate Lametiri with 70,000 Canadian dollars for moral damages, 85,000 Canadian dollars as punitive damages, and 9,514 Canadian dollars for material damages. Additionally, a permanent injunction was issued to remove around 15 videos and posts subject to dispute, prohibiting Girando from republishing similar content, with this order confirmed to remain effective despite the appeal.
Conversely, the court denied the request to mandate Girando to publish the ruling on his channel, arguing that such a measure could revive controversy rather than resolve it. The court emphasized that freedom of expression does not justify unfounded insults or harming others’ reputations under the guise of online journalism. Judge Bondaro affirmed that no one is above the law, even in the digital space, and that fact-checking and maintaining publishing integrity are boundaries that cannot be crossed in any media or communication context.
