Watan-The Speaker of the Moroccan House of Representatives, Rachid Talbi Alami, referred MP Rim Chabat to the Parliament’s Ethics Committee for review and appropriate disciplinary action after she criticized urban transport buses in Fez, describing them as dilapidated and scrap, during a monthly questioning session with the Prime Minister last Monday.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives considered the MP’s intervention as an overreach into the competencies of local municipalities, since urban transport management falls under the jurisdiction of municipalities, not the government. He clarified that urban transport is a fundamental responsibility of elected territorial councils, as stipulated in Articles 135 and 141 of the Moroccan Constitution, which affirm that “the management of local affairs, including public transport, is an exclusive competence of territorial communities (municipalities), not the government or Parliament.”
During the session, the MP held up a banner displaying images of burnt and dilapidated buses while attacking the Prime Minister. She asserted that the city of Fez suffers from neglect and questioned whether it would host the 2030 FIFA World Cup finals with rundown buses. She also strongly criticized the exclusion of Fez from the high-speed rail network.
Sources from the House of Representatives told the media that the disciplinary measure against Rim Chabat, a member of the “Democratic Forces Front” party, would be a “warning,” with instructions to “avoid repeating the incident” in the future.
These sources explained that referring the MP to the Ethics Committee was in accordance with the internal regulations, specifically Article 390, which emphasizes “the necessity of responsibility, commitment, integrity, and honesty.” They stressed that MPs are required to “express their opinions in a polite and respectful manner, avoiding threats, intimidation, provocation, or insults,” which Chabat violated when addressing the Prime Minister with inappropriate language.
The controversy raised constitutional questions about the Speaker’s decision. Moroccan political analyst Maryam Blil commented that jurisdictional conflicts between the government and local municipalities are common in parliamentary oversight. This is natural, given that some responsibilities are shared between the government and territorial councils, as stated in Article 140 of the Constitution, which mentions that “territorial communities, based on the principle of subsidiarity, have exclusive powers, shared powers with the state, and delegated powers from the latter.”
Speaking to Al-Quds Al-Arabi, the political and constitutional law researcher explained that discussing urban transport within the context of tourism or regional equity could be framed as a legitimate oral question. However, addressing urban transport as a standalone issue and expecting solutions from the government makes the question “misplaced, as the solution lies within territorial councils (municipalities).”
She added, “The MP could have discussed urban transport in a broader context, linking it to major events Morocco is preparing for or to tourism. However, by specifically addressing Fez, the city she represents, the intervention could be interpreted as electoral self-promotion. MPs represent the entire nation in public sessions for oral questions and should raise national issues.”
The analyst highlighted that the 2024 House of Representatives’ internal regulations provide a solution for such situations. Article 285, paragraph 2, states that “the Council’s Bureau may convert any oral question with a local character into a written question after notifying the MP in writing, and the MP has eight days to accept or reject this decision.”
She explained that this regulation acknowledges the frequent occurrence of such situations and underlines the Bureau’s role in ensuring adherence to parliamentary procedures. Given that the referral of the MP to the Ethics Committee was due to her language and expressions rather than a constitutional violation, as confirmed by parliamentary sources, the political analyst concluded that “it is possible to advocate for citizens’ interests without resorting to inappropriate rhetoric, as was the case with the MP.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
