Sidi Kacem criticizes the inability of the PJD governments to establish the National Medicines Agency and describes the accusations as “a breach of immunity.”
In a strong critique, Younes Benslimane, a parliamentary member from the National Rally of Independents party, condemned what he deemed “irresponsible accusations” within the legislative institution, following one of the parliamentary group leaders suggesting a conflict of interest in pharmaceutical contracts without providing any evidence. Benslimane stated during a Social Sectors Committee meeting in the House of Representatives on Wednesday that making such statements “transgresses the limits of parliamentary immunity” and directly affects public trust in institutions.
Benslimane pointed out that broadcasting parliamentary committee proceedings is a double-edged sword, imposing heightened responsibility on lawmakers regarding their public statements. He warned against turning unproven data into doubts that implicate ministers, likening the situation to “exchanging deals in a café,” while the reality follows precise processes and clear laws.
Speaking about the reform of the pharmaceutical sector, the parliamentarian reminded that several oversight and parliamentary reports—since 2009—recommended creating an independent national agency to manage medicines and health products. However, the consecutive governments of the Justice and Development Party did not act on this during their terms. He added that the current government initiated the establishment of the National Agency for Medicines and Health Products in 2023 through Law 22.10, considering this reform “a long-awaited structural overhaul” that puts the sector on the path to good governance.
Benslimane also criticized attempts by certain parties to drag the legislative institution into commercial disputes between competing companies, by naming individuals and transaction numbers within investigative committees. He warned that involving Parliament in “settling economic scores” threatens the quality of legislative work. He concluded by stating that parliamentary immunity “does not mean launching provocative accusations against public opinion without caution or responsibility.”
