Fez – On December 22 Fez’s Court of First Instance sentenced Nawfal Chabat, Hamid Chabat’s son, to two months in prison after review of the high-profile case.
The court issued the verdict against Chabat’s son for charges, including “driving under the influence of alcohol, refusal to comply, attempted flight and contempt of public officials during the exercise of their duties.”
Chabat’s son will also pay a fine of MAD 3,000 ($325) and an additional MAD 5,000 ($541) in compensation for the damages to the traffic officer against whom he is guilty of contempt.
During investigations Chabat’s son did not deny all accusations, he admitted to consuming alcohol, but denied that he had verbally attacked the police.
Nawfal Chabat is a lawyer by profession, former Istiqlal deputy, and current president of the rural commune of Brarha, in the province of Taza, under the Front of Democratic Forces (FDF). He is the son of Hamid Chabat, the former secretary-general of the Istiqlal party (PI) who fell out with the party shortly before Morocco’s latest elections in September and branched off to the FDF to salvage his political career.
According to local media, the Court of First Instance in Fez decided on December 15 to review Nawfal Chabat’s case. He stood before the court in the third session three weeks after the accused was placed in the local prison in Burkays, in the suburbs of Fez.
During the hearing, a traffic officer who was present when his colleague arrested Chabat, told the judging panel his testimony. The officer said Chabat was stopped for committing a traffic violation and obstructing traffic in the district. The accused also showed resistance when exiting the taxi he used attempting to flee the scene of the accident.
The judicial police officer, who was on-site to file the incident’s report also confirmed the “abnormal condition” in which the accused was at the moment of his arrest in the Ain Al-Samen district.
The defense demanded that Chabat’s son should be acquitted of the charges as they are not based on material evidence. He insisted that the claimed situation of the defendant was not proven by any scientific procedure.
The defense lawyer referred to the absence of any proof by a camera, which was not attached to the traffic policeman’s vest as is legally required.
