Last month, Morocco’s Constitutional Court declared several provisions of Draft Law No. 26.25, which aimed to reorganise the National Press Council, unconstitutional. The draft law had faced widespread opposition from journalists, media organisations, and human rights groups due to its potential chilling effect on press freedom in Morocco. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision on 19 February 2026, the Moroccan Government Council approved a new Draft Law No. 09.26. The new text effectively restarts the legislative process and maintains the general scope of the previous draft, while, however, reflecting the Court’s decision. It is regrettable that the new Draft Law 09.26 has once again been developed without any further consultation with media stakeholders. We also note that even after the Constitutional Court’s decision, concerns remain regarding several provisions. ARTICLE 19 emphasises that Parliament’s upcoming review should go beyond merely addressing the provisions rejected by the Court and undertake a comprehensive reconsideration of the law through an inclusive and participatory process.
On 22 January 2026, the Constitutional Court (Decision No. 261/26), following a referral by members of the House of Representatives, ruled that several provisions of Draft Law No. 26.25 had to be amended before the law could enter into force, identifying specific articles they deemed incompatible with the Constitution. The Court highlighted in particular provisions related to the composition of the Press Council, the role and responsibilities of the Supervisory Committee, and the powers granted to the Council’s president. The referral came as a last resort after journalists, press unions, and civil society organisations repeatedly raised concerns about both the substance of the draft law and the lack of a genuinely participatory legislative process. These concerns arose within the broader context of institutional uncertainty surrounding the Press Council and the state of media self-regulation in Morocco since the Council’s establishment in 2016 under Law No. 90.13. While said law had notable shortcomings, it was widely regarded as an important step toward strengthening independent press governance. However, since 2018 and particularly following the expiry of the Council’s first mandate in 2022, its functioning has been hampered by administrative delays and political deadlock.
Another failure to conduct a participatory and inclusive revision process
While the Constitutional Court did not address all concerns we had highlighted in our statement Draft Law No. 26.25 (such as regarding the Council’s powers to impose sanctions), the reform process prompted its decision and nevertheless presented an important opportunity to strengthen the institutional framework governing press self-regulation in Morocco. Yet, the Moroccan Government Council approved a new draft law No. 09.26 on 19 February 2026, in line with the Court’s decision. The Minister of Communication also confirmed the withdrawal of the decree-law that had sought to establish a transitional commission to manage the sector, noting that the conditions of urgency did not justify such an exceptional mechanism, and that the current administration would continue to oversee day-to-day affairs during the interim period.
As Draft Law 09.26 proceeds to Parliament, ARTICLE 19 considers that the Moroccan government missed an important opportunity to not only address the unconstitutional provisions identified by the Court, but also to respond to broader concerns raised by media and civil society.
Even after the Court’s decision, several provisions remain problematic. As the law moves to Parliament, ARTICLE 19 highlights selected provisions that raise concern in light of key self-regulatory standards and which should be revised and fully aligned with constitutional guarantees and international standards on freedom of expression. While highlighting key issues, this does not at this stage constitute a comprehensive analysis of the law or the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
Safeguarding the independence of the Press Council
Media self-regulation allows professionals to establish and uphold their own ethical standards without direct government intervention.
While the Constitutional Court upheld the delegation mechanism for appointing certain Council members, stating it falls within legislative discretion and is accompanied by legal safeguards, ARTICLE 19 remains concerned that the proposed appointment structure may not provide sufficient guarantees of independence in practice. International standards on media self-regulation emphasise that the credibility and effectiveness of a Press Council depend on appointment procedures that are transparent, participatory, and insulated from political influence. Best practice across democratic systems shows that Press Councils derive legitimacy where members are selected through elections by media professionals, nominations by representative media associations, and meaningful participation of civil society and independent public members.
While delegation mechanisms are not inherently incompatible with independence, they require strong counterbalancing safeguards to prevent real or perceived political influence. To strengthen public trust and ensure compliance with international best practice, the legislative framework should prioritise inclusive and sector-led selection mechanisms, with elections or broadly participatory nomination procedures serving as the primary means of constituting the Council.
Although inclusive and sector-led selection mechanisms would have been preferable, ARTICLE 19 welcomes the Court’s decision to partially rebalance for the representation of publishers on the Council – seven designated by professional organisations and two additional members appointed by the largest organisation – but at the same time we note that limiting journalists to seven elected representatives still overall undermines equal representation. Similarly, ARTICLE 19 supports the Constitutional Court’s finding that Article 49 of Draft Law No. 26.25, which allowed a single publishers’ organisation to dominate all seats, is unconstitutional, as it undermines pluralism and excludes other legally recognised professional organisations.
Ethical oversight and press council powers
The Press Council’s primary mandate is to ensure ethical oversight of the media sector. It should have authority to impose moral but not punitive sanctions. While the previous law had already empowered the Press Council to take punitive measures, the current draft expands the Council’s punitive powers further, including the power to suspend publications for up to 30 days without judicial approval.
The legitimacy and effectiveness of self-regulation depend on independence, representative composition, and a clearly defined ethical mandate. Its authority should derive from professional credibility and peer accountability, not coercive powers. The Council should therefore focus on promoting professional standards and addressing complaints through moral sanctions.
While the Constitutional Court invoked the principles of impartiality and independence when reviewing the provision that included the Chair of the Ethics Committee in the Disciplinary Appeals Committee, it is unfortunate that it did not fully address the broader concern regarding the Press Council’s power to impose punitive sanctions. ARTICLE 19 maintains that genuine self-regulation requires a clear separation from punitive authority in order to safeguard the Council’s independence, credibility, and alignment with international standards on freedom of expression.
Parliamentary review as the final opportunity
The adoption of Draft Law No. 26.25 lacked meaningful consultation with journalists, publishers, and civil society. The review prompted by the recent Constitutional Court ruling presents an important opportunity to address this shortcoming. As the government approved Draft Law No. 09.26, another opportunity arises during Parliament’s upcoming review to go beyond the provisions rejected by the Court and undertake a full reconsideration of the law. This process should be genuinely participatory, bringing together journalists, publishers, civil society organisations, and human rights groups. It should include a thorough review of provisions that have raised concerns, ensuring that the amended law protects press freedom, guarantees media pluralism, and strengthens the independence and credibility of the Press Council while aligning with international best practices for self-regulation.