DR ‹ › The Executive Bureau of the Moroccan Federation of Newspaper Publishers convened on March 26, 2026, to address pressing concerns within the publishing sector. Central to their discussions was the draft law aimed at restructuring the National Press Council, following the Constitutional Court's ruling on January 22, 2026. The government's subsequent revision of Draft Law No. 09.26, now under parliamentary review, was a focal point. In a statement, the Executive Bureau expressed disappointment over the government's handling of this matter, criticizing what it termed a «unilateral and exclusive approach» that sidelined the Federation from crucial discussions. This, they argued, contravenes the constitutional mandate for a participatory process. The Bureau stressed that the Constitutional Court's decision should have sparked a genuine dialogue fostering broad consensus, rather than a superficial reintroduction of the draft with minimal changes. The Federation emphasized that the Constitutional Court's ruling was not merely technical but included clear directives to rebuild the law on new foundations that embrace pluralism and prevent monopolistic tendencies. They criticized the retention of turnover as a criterion for determining publishers' representation, viewing it as a commercial metric misaligned with professional ethics, potentially paving the way for monopolies and undermining diversity. The Federation noted that the new governmental draft did not deviate from this flawed logic, despite suggesting broader organizational involvement. The Executive Bureau also highlighted other deficiencies in the draft, such as the implementation of an individual voting system for journalist representation. They argued that this could dilute comprehensive representation and diminish the presence of diverse media components, while also marginalizing the role of professional unions. Although acknowledging some positive strides, like efforts to balance representation within the council, the Federation called for a deeper revision of provisions related to disciplinary justice and mechanisms for mediation and arbitration to bolster the institution's independence. Additionally, the Federation criticized the management of public funding for the press, citing a lack of dialogue and the continued use of criteria they deemed tailored to benefit a specific organization. They expressed surprise at the perceived opacity in forming committees responsible for distributing support, warning of the potential negative impacts these imbalances could have on the profession's future.
