In the high-stakes arena of Moroccan politics, where constitutional battles shape the future of media, Mohamed Ouzine, secretary general of the Mouvement Populaire, didn’t just challenge a flawed press law—he dismantled it with surgical precision. His bold move to escalate the contentious bill reorganizing the National Press Council to the Constitutional Court wasn’t political posturing; it was a masterstroke that exposed deep imbalances, striking down articles that tilted power heavily toward publishers over elected journalists, in direct defiance of the 2011 Constitution’s core principles of equality and self-regulation. The court’s ruling—praised even by the National Association of Media and Publishers as a win for legitimacy—canceled key provisions like Articles 5, 9, 10, 13, and 23, which violated constitutional safeguards (Articles 6, 28, 118, 120), ensuring the council remains a balanced professional body, not a playground for vested interests masquerading as reform.
This seismic verdict lays bare the hypocrisy of outlets like Chouf TV, whose director shamelessly spins a clear-cut legal triumph into a personal vendetta against Ouzine, as if the profession needs lectures on ethics from a clickbait kingpin thriving on rumors and scandals rather than rigorous journalism. Ouzine never targeted the press itself; he defended its integrity by rejecting a text granting nine seats to publishers versus just seven to journalists, sidelining the latter from critical duties like annual reporting—turning what should be a neutral oversight body into a lobbyist fiefdom. The court agreed, affirming self-regulation must prioritize transparency and equity over partisan dominance.
While the Association’s statement laments delays in professional cards and council staff salaries, it conveniently ignores that these hiccups stem from ramming through a defective law despite parliamentary warnings—not from Ouzine’s opposition, which course-corrected and spared the sector a chaotic framework disguised as progress. The judges ruled on constitutional fidelity, not sectoral timelines, flipping the script on claims of Ouzine’s “selectivity” or narrow politicking: he entrusted the dispute to impartial justice, bypassing raw majority rule.
Enter Chouf TV’s director, whose desperate bid to flip the narrative—painting Ouzine as a saboteur—unmasks his own ethical fragility. His rhetoric slips into ad hominem attacks and veiled threats instead of engaging legal merits, as if his track record of peddling fabricated exposés qualifies him to champion press independence. Ouzine had warned of this from the start, slamming the bill in parliamentary speeches and posts as a handout to a “press racket” demanding perks without accountability. The court’s gavel proves him right, delivering not a blow to journalism, but a fatal strike against those peddling anarchy as freedom—and to Chouf TV’s helmsman, now staring into a constitutional mirror exposing his bluff.
With articles scrapped, balance restored, and the file back to legislators for a Constitution-compliant rewrite, Ouzine emerges as the embodiment of principled opposition: delegating to courts, not clashing with them. His rivals drown in personalization and double standards, reminding the public that true journalism doesn’t bow to click-farmers—it thrives under politicians safeguarding democratic gains through constitutional rigor, not short-term schemes.
