The Constitutional Court announced, after studying the referral presented by 96 deputies in the House of Representatives on January 7, 2026, that five articles of Law No. 026.25 related to the reorganization of the National Press Council are not in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The court considered that some provisions of the law violate fundamental principles such as democratic balance in representation, professional plurality, independence of the body, neutrality in disciplinary procedures, and legislative coherence.
The declared unconstitutional articles and their main reasons:
- Article 5 (paragraph B): States that 9 members are allocated for the publishers category (7 appointed from professional organizations + 2 “wise men” appointed from the organization with the largest share), against only 7 members elected from the professional journalists category. The court considered this numerical preference in favor of publishers to be in violation of the democratic foundations and balance in representation, as inferred from paragraph three of Article 28 of the Constitution, which encourages organizing the journalism sector “independently and on democratic foundations.”
- The last paragraph of Article 4: Limits the oversight of the annual report preparation (which covers professional ethics and press freedom) to the two “wise publishers” only. The court saw that this exclusion of representatives of journalists disrupts the balance and equality between the two professional categories, reinforcing the same disruption that led to the annulment of clause (B) of Article 5.
- Article 49: States that all seats for the publishers category in the council are granted to the professional organization with the largest number of representative shares (or most operational in case of a tie). The court found that this provision leads to the domination of one organization in representation, contradicting the principle of representative plurality stated in Article 8 of the Constitution, which refers to “professional organizations” in the plural and protects the freedom to establish and practice them.
- The first paragraph of Article 57: Requires the election of the president of the council and his deputy from different genders without prior guarantees for the representation of both genders in the publishers category (which relies on appointment). The court concluded that this requirement lacks legislative coherence, as it imposes an outcome that may practically be unachievable without comprehensive legal organization that ensures its realization, thus restricting the right to candidacy and election.
- Article 93: Includes the president of the ethics committee (who is primarily responsible for disciplinary sanctions) among the members of the disciplinary appeals committee. The court considered that this overlap undermines the principle of neutrality and independence in disciplinary decisions, derived from the guarantees of a fair trial in Articles 118 and 120 of the Constitution.
What does it mean?
The law was not entirely annulled; only the violating articles were struck down, with the remaining provisions (such as Articles 9, 10, 13, 23, 44, 45, 55) deemed constitutional according to the ruling.
This means returning the text to the legislative process for amending the defective articles or rephrasing them in accordance with the Constitution, before they can be issued.
The decision comes amid a heated debate that the law has witnessed since its introduction, where the opposition and many professional bodies (including the National Union of Moroccan Press and the Publishers’ Federations) considered it an attempt to enhance economic influence at the expense of the council’s independence and the democracy of its representation.
