Radio ExpressTV
Live
Official Denial Reveals Bakkali’s Misrepresentations and Signals Possible Investigation into Journalists’ List
On December 22, 2025, in Rabat, the National Commission for the Protection of Personal Data issued a strongly worded clarification in response to statements made by Abdullah Bakkali, a member of the temporary committee managing the affairs of the press and publishing sector. The Commission labeled these interpretations and data as “incorrect” and “misleading.”
The statement, articulated in precise legal language, not only refuted the circulating inaccuracies but also reaffirmed the legal and institutional framework governing the Commission’s competencies and its intervention limits, especially concerning personal data processing and the confusion—whether intentional or not—between the roles of different bodies.
No Administrative Management… No Content Assessment
The National Commission emphatically stated that its appointed members, designated by royal decree, have no duties related to administrative management, file review, or the making of executive decisions. Their roles are limited to deliberation and opinion within the institutional framework, while the relevant administrative services are responsible for receiving and studying the files before presenting them, when necessary, to the Commission’s members.
The statement stressed that the Commission does not intervene in the evaluation of file contents or infringe on citizens’ rights, emphasizing that its involvement is strictly to oversee the processes of collecting and processing personal data, ensuring compliance with Law 09-08, and protecting individual rights without serving any political or professional agenda.
The Ethical and Voluntary Dimension… Absent from Public Discourse
The document also clarified that the Commission’s support and guidance to stakeholders falls within a pedagogical and ethical framework that is not explicitly stated in the law and is often appreciated by the parties involved. This contrasts sharply with the image that some statements tried to portray about the nature and motivations of the Commission’s work.
The Journalists’ List… The Truth That Was Concealed
The most alarming aspect of the statement revealed the absence of the list of journalists benefiting from professional cards. The Commission implicitly denied the justifications promoted regarding this issue, asserting that the actual reasons for not publishing this list have existed for at least two years and that what was presented to the public does not reflect the complete truth.
Here, it becomes evident that Abdullah Bakkali’s statements, made on several occasions, were not merely personal assessments or subjective readings. They contributed to creating institutional misunderstandings that necessitated this official statement for clarification.
The Noose Tightens… Responsibility is Present
While the National Commission confirms its non-involvement in any political or electoral conflicts, it clearly stated that it reserves the right to refer the matter to the public prosecution if malicious intent is proven. This serves as a strong indication of the seriousness of manipulating legal and institutional data, especially when it pertains to journalists’ rights and the public’s trust in regulatory bodies.
The “denial and clarification” statement cannot be viewed as an isolated technical document but rather as a strict institutional message: mixing competencies is rejected, disseminating misinformation is unacceptable, and using the journalists’ list as a rhetorical device without legal backing has been exposed.
Today, with the tightening grip on inaccurate narratives, the discussion returns to its proper square: who is truly responsible for withholding the journalists’ list? And why has this situation persisted for two full years?
These questions can no longer be evaded with statements but require documented and responsible answers.
