The reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure continues to generate controversy. After the MPs, the draft is now before the Councilors. The draft was submitted to the 2nd Chamber on May 21, before being referred to the Justice and Legislation Commission on May 26.
Debates are already expected to be tense. One of the main points of contention is the tightening of conditions for associations to lodge complaints or bring civil actions in cases of corruption and misappropriation of public funds. In the face of opposition from the Minister of Justice, Abdellatif Ouahbi, who is sticking to his version of the bill, the parliamentary groups are likely to hold him to ransom, especially after the advocacy of several NGOs. Constitutional bodies, notably the CESE, have also pointed out the inconsistencies of certain provisions, particularly those relating to the role of NGOs in the fight against corruption and the squandering of public funds. A Council opinion on this bill has just been published in the latest edition of the Official Gazette.
U Under the bill currently before the House of Councillors, in particular article 7, associations wishing to act as civil parties in criminal cases involving public funds must have charitable status and have been legally established for at least 4 years prior to the events in question. These conditions already exist in the current system. However, just when NGOs were expecting the possibility of bringing civil action to be extended to the whole of civil society, the new text introduces a new condition, according to the CESE. This is “authorization to sue”, granted by the Ministry of Justice, in accordance with procedures to be laid down by decree. For the CESE, this orientation does not go in the direction of consecrating the role of civil society and citizen participation in public affairs. In the Council’s view, the lawmakers have “ locked up a system that was already locked up ”
On the whole, the CESE highlighted other provisions that are not in line with the stated aim of cracking down on crimes involving public funds and corruption in general. This is particularly the case with Article 3 of the draft reform, which limits the possibility of initiating public action to bodies such as the “ National Commission for the Prevention of Corruption ” (INPPLC), the “ General Inspectorate of Finance ” (IGF), the “ General Inspectorate of Territorial Administration ” (IGAT), etc. “This raises fundamental issues relating to the conformity of these provisions with the Constitution”, according to the CESE. The Council also considers that “the limitation of this right is not in line with the provisions of the Penal Code, which punishes anyone who fails to report a crime of which he or she is aware”, especially as the Penal Code provides for a series of sanctions that can be activated against anyone acting in bad faith for defamation, blackmail, or false denunciation.
However, the CESE points out that any individual or legal entity may still make a denunciation through the complaints mechanism of the National Commission for Probity, Prevention and the Fight against Corruption, (INPPLC), which is empowered to refer a complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, once it has been examined.
M.A.M.
