The Public Prosecution Office has categorically denied reports claiming that Senegalese nationals detained in connection with the violence surrounding the Africa Cup of Nations final have gone on hunger strike while in custody.
In an official clarification, the King’s representative at the Rabat Court of First Instance rejected information circulated by a foreign news agency, describing the claims as unfounded.
The statement stressed that the detainees enjoy all their legally guaranteed rights, both in terms of detention conditions and judicial safeguards, including the right to defence and access to translation services.
Addressing the alleged hunger strike, the Public Prosecution confirmed that the information is inaccurate, noting that the detainees continue to receive their meals in a normal and regular manner in line with prison regulations. No cases of refusal to eat have been recorded by the prison administration.
On the issue of the postponement of the case, the King’s representative outlined the procedural timeline, explaining that the first hearing was held on January 22, 2026. The session was later adjourned to January 29 at the request of the defendants to allow them time to prepare their defence.
The case was postponed again after the defendants insisted on the presence of their lawyers, with February 5, 2026 set for the subsequent hearing. During that session, a lawyer from the French Bar was present but was not accompanied by a locally accredited lawyer with a correspondence address in Morocco, leading to another adjournment.
The court then scheduled February 12, 2026 for the next session following a collective request from the defendants seeking additional time to secure legal representation.
The statement further clarified that the lawyer in question communicated directly with the detainees in French and informed them of the postponement decision in line with their expressed wishes.
Regarding claims that no translator was present during court proceedings, the Public Prosecution insisted that all hearings were conducted with a sworn translator appointed by the court. Translation was provided in French, a language the statement noted is understood by all the detainees without exception.
Concerns about questioning by the judicial police without an interpreter were also addressed. The Public Prosecution recalled that Article 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of an interpreter if the judicial police officer is fluent in a language understood by the person being questioned. It added that interrogation records show the statements were read aloud and translated to the detainees before being signed.
The Public Prosecution concluded by affirming that the information published by the foreign media outlet has no factual or legal basis and does not accurately reflect the procedural or legal reality of the case.
