Rabat: Morocco’s public prosecutor of the King at the Rabat Court of First Instance has denied allegations in a dispatch published by a foreign agency concerning an alleged hunger strike by Senegalese detainees following acts of hooliganism during the final of the Africa Cup of Nations, stating that these allegations are completely unfounded and that the information reported by their defense is false and intended to derail the case.

According to Agence Marocaine De Presse, the public prosecutor of the King indicated that the dispatch, which claimed, according to the defense of the individuals concerned, that the strike was a reaction on their part to the delay in the processing of the case for which they are being prosecuted, as well as to the failure to provide an interpreter during their hearing, contained several falsehoods.

In this regard, the same source continues, the Public Prosecutor’s Office informs the public that the allegation concerning the hunger strike by Senegalese detainees is false, as the
individuals concerned are receiving meals provided by the facility in a normal and regular manner.

Concerning the postponement of the defendants’ case to the hearing scheduled for February 12, 2026, the same source states that the case was first scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2026, and was postponed to January 29, 2026, following their request for time to prepare their defense.

After the case was scheduled for the hearing on January 29, 2026, it was postponed again following the defendants insistence on being assisted by their lawyer. The court then adjourned the hearing of the case until February 5, 2026, at which time a lawyer representing them, registered with the French Bar, was present, but without the lawyer who has a correspondent office in Morocco.

The case was then adjourned until February 12, 2026, following the unanimous insistence of all defendants to be assisted by their defense counsel and their request to the court to grant them time for this purpose, which proves that the postponement
of the case took place at their request.

Furthermore, the aforementioned lawyer communicated directly with the Senegalese detainees in French and informed them of the date of the case’s postponement, in accordance with their request.

As for the presence of an interpreter at the hearing to provide translation, the statement notes that the hearings were attended by a sworn interpreter appointed by the court to translate all exchanges during the hearings into French, a language understood and spoken by all of the aforementioned detainees without exception, which demonstrates that the allegations made by the defense of the persons concerned in this regard are false.

With regard to the allegation that the minutes of the hearings of the persons concerned were drawn up by members of the judicial police without the assistance of an interpreter, the same source points out that Article 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the use of an interpreter if the officer responsible for drawing up the hearin
g minutes is himself proficient in the language spoken by the person being questioned.