Retired Judge Sentenced to 3 Years for Speaking Out Against Morocco’s Justice System
Casablanca, Morocco – A retired Moroccan judge has been sentenced to three years in prison after publicly criticizing the country’s justice system. The case has raised concerns about freedom of speech and the independence of the judiciary in Morocco.
Malika Amri, 70, was found guilty of “spreading false accusations and facts with the aim of harming the private lives of individuals and defaming them,” according to Moroccan media reports. The charges stem from a video Amri posted on social media in which she addressed King Mohammed VI, who also holds the title of “First Judge,” regarding a land dispute involving her family.
In the video, Amri detailed the circumstances of the case and made strong statements about the state of the Moroccan judicial system, stating that it was “on its deathbed” and had “entered the intensive care unit.” She also named high-ranking judicial figures, accusing them of serious misconduct.
Amri’s public pronouncements prompted a swift response from the public prosecutor’s office in Casablanca. The national judicial police were ordered to investigate her claims, leading to her arrest and subsequent trial.
Despite pleas from her defense team for her release on bail due to her age and health conditions, including diabetes and reported fainting spells while in custody, the court refused. Amri’s lawyer maintains that his client’s statements were made in good faith and were intended to expose corruption within the justice system.
This case comes at a time when Morocco faces increasing scrutiny from international human rights organizations regarding its record on freedom of expression. According to Freedom House’s 2023 Freedom in the World report, Morocco is categorized as “Partly Free,” with a score of 43 out of 100, highlighting ongoing concerns about restrictions on press freedom and the targeting of journalists and activists.
The sentencing of Malika Amri has sparked debate within Morocco and beyond, raising questions about the balance between protecting the reputation of the judiciary and upholding the right to free speech, particularly when it comes to criticizing public institutions.
