This article was automatically translated from HIBAPRESS, the Arabic version:
This article was automatically translated from HIBAPRESS, the Arabic version:
Heba Press: Muhammad Zariyouh
Next Wednesday, attention will turn to the Fez Court of Appeal, where the seventh hearing in the trial of Mohamed Abarkan, head of the Izanen group in Nador province, as well as several other defendants in cases related to corruption. This follows his first conviction to five years in prison and a fine of 100,000 dirhams for charges including falsification of official documents and participation in the issuance of illegal administrative acts, which sparked widespread controversy in local and legal circles.
As the date of the session approaches, questions arise again about the possibility of Abrakan’s absence this time, after he had absented himself from previous sessions under the pretext of illness. Although he provided medical certificates to justify his absence, these justifications were the subject of doubts and criticism, particularly after his appearance in local activities linked to these absences, which aroused the surprise of observers and increased the intensity of criticism.
The questions were renewed especially after an exciting incident that occurred on December 25, when Abarkan was absent from the trial, but he showed up the same day at a local meeting in Nador to discuss development plans for the region. This incident led some to question the veracity of the medical certificates provided and raised questions about the seriousness of the treatment of these justifications and the extent of Abarkan’s commitment to the path of justice.
This controversy is accompanied by calls from followers of the case for the need to strictly apply the law regarding the repeated absences of the accused, in order to guarantee the integrity of the trial and preserve the independence of the judicial power. This case is a test for judicial authorities to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of transparency and accountability, particularly in cases related to public corruption.
Judicial circles and observers of the next session are waiting for the court’s decision on the presence or absence of Abarkan, just as everyone is waiting for a decisive position from the judiciary on this issue. This expectation raises a broad debate on the importance of combating attempts to exploit legal loopholes likely to affect the course of justice and the reputation of the judiciary in cases of sensitive dimensions.
