The King's prosecutor at the Court of First Instance in Rabat denied the allegations contained in a news dispatch published by a foreign agency regarding a hunger strike by Senegalese nationals detained in connection with the riots that occurred during the final match of the Africa Cup of Nations, emphasizing that these allegations are baseless and that the information conveyed by their defense is incorrect news attempting to influence the course of the case.
A statement from the King's prosecutor confirmed that the aforementioned dispatch, which stated, according to the defense of those concerned, that their strike was an expression of the delay in deciding their case and the lack of a translator during their questioning, contains a number of fallacies.
In this regard, the same source added, the Public Prosecution informs the public that regarding the claim of a hunger strike by the Senegalese detainees, it is incorrect news, as those concerned are receiving the meals provided by the institution normally and regularly, which shows that the information conveyed by their defense is incorrect news attempting to influence the course of the case.
The statement noted that "regarding the postponement of the defendants' case to the court session to be held on February 12, 2026, it should be noted that the first session in which their case was included was on January 22, 2026, and it was postponed to the session of January 29, 2026, at their request for time to prepare their defense.
The statement continued that after the case file was included in the session of January 29, 2026, it was postponed due to their insistence on the presence of their defense, and the court panel postponed the discussion of their case to the session of February 5, 2026, which saw the presence of a lawyer representing them from the French Bar Association, without being accompanied by the lawyer with whom they have correspondence in Morocco.
The source stated that following this, the case file was postponed to the session of February 12, 2026, based on their unanimous insistence on the presence of their defense, and their request to the court for a grace period to enable them to do so. Thus, it is clear that the postponement of the case was based on their request.
On the other hand, the source continued, the aforementioned lawyer contacted the Senegalese detainees directly in French and informed them of the date of the file's postponement, in accordance with their request submitted to the court.
Regarding the presence of an interpreter to perform translation during the trial session, the same source indicated that the trial sessions were attended by a sworn interpreter appointed by the court to translate what transpired in the aforementioned sessions into French, which all the aforementioned detainees understand and speak without exception. This also shows that the claims of the defense of the parties concerned in this regard are incorrect.
As for the allegation related to the preparation of listening records for the parties concerned by judicial police officers without the assistance of an interpreter, the source pointed out that the provisions of Article 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not require the assistance of an interpreter if the officer supervising the preparation of the listening record is fluent in the language understood by the person being listened to.
The statement concluded that the listening records prepared for all the aforementioned detainees indicated the statement of reading and translation of the content of the record prepared for the person being listened to, in accordance with the provisions of the law.
