Moroccan Court Overturns Compensation for Ex-Soldier in Controversial Desertion Case

A former soldier had been sentenced to three years in prison and had been granted a royal pardon 5 months before the end of his sentence. He will have spent 2 years and 7 months in prison. Convicted of desertion, he brought the case before the courts after leaving prison, claiming compensation. Compensation which was moreover granted to him, at first instance: 200,000 dirhams. And now the case on appeal has overturned this first verdict. And why?

The Court of Appeal stated that there was an error at first instance because it has not been proven that the administration or the institutions representing it are guilty of an error that has harmed the person claiming compensation.

Let’s go back to the story. According to Assabah, the source of this information, this soldier (whom many media describe as a "deserter") claims that he was denied access to the barracks after he had been granted administrative leave. He had even, in the meantime, according to his statements, been removed from the list of soldiers. That’s when he would have left the premises. It will have done him no good: an arrest warrant was issued against him on the grounds of desertion and a few days later he was arrested by the Royal Gendarmerie. If he is telling the truth, one would say either a very serious administrative error or an intentional act to harm him. If he is telling the truth... Something that the courts must have believed at first instance. And that’s no small thing...

But the Court of Appeal had a different opinion: There is nothing to ensure that this soldier was indeed dismissed before the issuance of the wanted notice concerning him, which makes him not someone (as he says) who could not go to his workplace, not being able to enter it by force (the army is probably not a company where one can bring a bailiff to note the denial of access), but someone who deserted. So the public administration cannot be accused of error, because... no proof. So all those who cannot prove that they are not deserters are deserters. Presumed guilty until proven innocent? Fascinating! And frightening...

It should be noted that for some local media, this individual would already be a deserter (with the usual demonization accompanying this insult) who just wanted to scam the State by extracting compensation from it. These media probably forget the first instance judgment...

In summary, the question that arises is: if we cannot prove that he did not desert, can we prove that he did? And how? And why this first instance judgment if we could? It doesn’t make sense, does it?