chargement...
The Constitutional Court has dealt a significant setback to the government by striking down several key provisions of Law No. 026.25 on the reorganization of the National Press Council (CNP). In its ruling, the high court found that these articles violate the Constitution of July 1, 2011, thereby validating long-standing criticisms voiced by the Moroccan Federation of Newspaper Publishers (FMEJ), the National Syndicate of Moroccan Press (SNPM), the National Union of Information, Press and Communication (UMT), the National Syndicate of Information and Press (CDT), the Moroccan Confederation of Newspaper and Electronic Press Publishers, as well as opposition parliamentary groups.
The Court ruled that the text drafted by the executive fails to comply with Article 28 of the Constitution, which stipulates that «public authorities shall promote the organization of the press sector in an independent and democratic manner, as well as the determination of its legal and ethical rules».
According to the Court, the contested law introduces a clear imbalance in the composition of the National Press Council. Article 5 (paragraph b), for instance, allocates nine seats to publishers compared with seven seats for professional journalists, a distribution deemed contrary to the constitutional requirement of balance and representativeness. Likewise, the final paragraph of Article 4 assigns responsibility for drafting the CNP’s annual report to two members drawn exclusively from the publishers’ college, unjustifiably excluding representatives of journalists.
Grievances Identified by the Constitutional Court
The Court further held that Law No. 026.25 undermines the principle of pluralistic representation among publishers. Article 49 provides that the professional organization obtaining the highest number of quotas would be awarded all seats reserved for that category, thereby eliminating any form of pluralistic or democratic representation within the Council.
In addition, the Constitutional Court censured Article 93, finding that it violates the constitutional principle of impartiality, notably enshrined in Articles 23, 118, and 120 of the Constitution. This provision allowed the president of the Ethics and Discipline Commission, competent at first instance, to sit on the Appeals Commission tasked with reviewing challenges to decisions they had previously taken. The Court deemed this arrangement incompatible with the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial.
The ruling follows a petition filed on January 7, 2026, by 96 opposition and independent members of parliament, pursuant to Article 132 of the Constitution, challenging the constitutionality of nine provisions of Law No. 026.25.
It is worth recalling that, backed by its parliamentary majority in both chambers, the government had succeeded in securing approval for the law reorganizing the National Press Council from deputies and parliamentary advisors prior to the Court’s intervention.
