CAF president drawn Into AFCON legal storm

Defence lawyers representing Senegalese supporters have called for the Confederation of African Football (CAF) president to be summoned in court, as the legal case linked to the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final entered a new phase in Rabat.

The request was made during a hearing at the Rabat Court of Appeal on Monday, where the defence challenged key elements of the prosecution’s case and sought further scrutiny of the evidence presented.

The developments mark a significant shift in proceedings surrounding the incidents that followed the final between Morocco and Senegal.

The supporters on trial are accused of taking part in disturbances at the Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium, where the final was played.

The match, which drew attention across the continent, was followed by incidents that led to multiple arrests and legal action.

During the hearing, defence lawyers argued that responsibility for the organisation of the event should be considered as part of the case.

They requested that the president of CAF be summoned, stating that the governing body, as the official organiser of the tournament, should be held accountable for aspects of the situation.

In addition to this request, the defence sought access to the technical means required to review video footage used by investigators.

التمس دفاع المشجعين السنغاليين المتابعين في حالة اعتقال على ذمة أحداث شغب نهائي كأس أمم إفريقيا “المغرب 2025″، من محكمة الاستئناف بالرباط، استدعاء رئيس الكونفدرالية الإفريقية لكرة القدم (كاف)، باعتبارها الهيئة المسؤولة عن تنظيم التظاهرة.

وطالب الدفاع، خلال جلسة اليوم الإثنين،… pic.twitter.com/BW8hbwrgFx

— Hespress هسبريس (@hespress) April 13, 2026

Lawyers insisted that each accusation should be examined individually and supported by clear visual evidence.

“The court must verify who did what,” argued the defense, stressing that the current case lacks sufficient individualized evidence.

This argument forms a central part of the defence strategy, which aims to demonstrate that the accusations against the supporters have not been sufficiently substantiated on an individual basis.

By calling for a detailed review of footage, the lawyers hope to clarify the role of each defendant.

Questions were also raised about the assessment of damage allegedly caused during the incidents.

Defence lawyer Naima El Gallaf challenged the figures presented to the court, suggesting that they had not been established through a formal expert evaluation.

She requested that a representative of the National Agency for Public Equipment be called to testify, arguing that the process used to calculate the reported damage lacked transparency.

“What has been presented as the amount of damage has not been established by an official expert assessment,” she said, demanding clarity on how the figures had been determined.

The defence further pressed for witness testimonies to be heard and for all available footage of the match and surrounding events to be reviewed in court. According to the lawyers, such measures would strengthen the integrity of the proceedings.

“Hearing witnesses and reviewing the video will not harm the case… It will allow the court to rely on verified statements and clear facts,” said Naima El Gallaf.

These requests reflect a broader effort by the defence to expand the scope of the trial and ensure that all aspects of the case are examined in detail.

The approach underscores concerns about the reliability and completeness of the evidence currently being used.

However, the public prosecutor opposed these requests, arguing that they would not contribute meaningfully to the case.

The prosecution maintained that the facts had already been sufficiently documented and did not require further examination.

“This will be of no use and will not serve the case,” said the public prosecutor, rejecting the defence’s proposals.

The prosecutor also emphasised that the incidents in question were broadcast live and witnessed by a wide audience.

This, they argued, reinforced the strength of the case against the accused.

In addition, the prosecution highlighted that the alleged offences took place within a Moroccan stadium and therefore fall under Moroccan criminal law.

This legal framework, according to the prosecutor, supports the charges brought against the supporters.

The court has yet to rule on the various requests submitted by the defence, leaving uncertainty over the next stages of the proceedings.

The outcome of these decisions could influence how the case develops in the coming days.

The trial continues to attract attention due to its wider implications.

🚨 Patrice Motsepe addresses the trophy and medals question:

When asked whether Senegal will return the AFCON trophy and medals to be handed over to Morocco, he said:

“There’s nothing I can tell you that I haven’t said already, 10, 15, even 100 times. Ask me again 100 times and… pic.twitter.com/QQkuAxEnmB

— Micky Jnr (@MickyJnr__) April 8, 2026

Beyond the individuals involved, it raises questions about the organisation of major sporting events, the handling of crowd incidents, and the responsibilities of governing bodies.

As the appeal process unfolds, both sides remain firmly opposed in their interpretations of the events and the evidence.

The defence is pushing for a broader examination of the case, while the prosecution insists that the existing material is sufficient.

For now, the proceedings remain ongoing, with the court expected to consider the arguments presented before delivering its next decisions.