Rabat - As the high-profile trial of Gdim Izik incident attracts worldwide attention, two defense attorneys have dropped out of the case.
Rabat – As the high-profile trial of Gdim Izik incident attracts worldwide attention, two defense attorneys have dropped out of the case.
The action follows a disagreement with the rest of the defense board on the advocacy approach, which was to attack Moroccan territorial integrity.
Hassan Daki, Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeal of Rabat, stated that Abdelaziz Nouidi, lawyer at the bar of Rabat, withdrew from the defense of Ennaâma Assfari, one of the accused in the Gdim Izik incident, following a disagreement with one of his peers.
Nouidi explained his decision to withdraw from the case as a disagreement with the strategy proposed by one of his colleagues, which was mainly to question Morocco’s sovereignty over the Sahara. The defense lawyer believed that this approach did not serve his clienthe told reporters at the end of the third hearing of the Gdim Izik trial, held yesterday.
The withdrawal of Mr. Nouidi was based on his conviction that “the arguments put forward by his French colleague Joseph Breham, were contrary to his approach. “The brief that the French lawyer intended to submit to the court referred to what he considered an occupation and, as a result, attacked the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco,” said Daki.
Boujemaa Achehboune, the second defense attorney to withdraw from the case, did so only hours after Mr Nouidi. His departure followed the statements of one of the foreign defense lawyers, in which she repeatedly used the expression “Occupied Sahara” to talk about Morocco’s southern territories.
These allegations created disruption in the hearing on January 24, and great disagreement among the defense attorneys. Both Nouidi and Achehboune stated that their decision to withdraw was motivated by the “illegality” of the pleadings of their colleagues, who based their defense approach on the law of armed conflicts.