Judicial cooperation between Morocco and Spain could be heading for a serious chill. Justice Minister Abdellatif Ouahbi is considering suspending the extradition treaty. At issue are individuals wanted by the Moroccan justice system whose extradition Madrid had approved but who were never handed over to the kingdom.
“We are currently examining, within the Ministry of Justice, the possibility of suspending the application of the extradition agreement between Morocco and Spain,” the minister said in an interview with EFE.
Beyond these pending cases, Rabat is raising the question of reciprocity. Abdellatif Ouahbi says Morocco honors Spanish requests, while some extraditions sought by its courts fall through at the last moment, sometimes after escort officers have already arrived.
“We are told that the person was at liberty,” he explained, describing the situation as “incomprehensible.” The minister called on the Spanish authorities to handle these cases “seriously” and warned that Morocco would not continue mobilizing its security services for operations that ultimately lead nowhere.
A Treaty in Force Since 2012
The Extradition Treaty between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Kingdom of Spain was signed in Rabat on June 24, 2009, and entered into force on September 1, 2012. It replaced the 1997 agreement, setting out more precisely the conditions under which either country may surrender to the other a person being prosecuted or convicted by its courts.
Read also : Calls for mass Ceuta Crossing trigger unprecedented security deployment in Northern Morocco
The principle is laid down in the very first article. When a wanted person is on the territory of either of the two states, that state must be able to surrender the individual to the other so that they can stand trial or serve a prison sentence there.
Several conditions must nevertheless be met. The acts must be punishable in both countries. If extradition is requested for the purpose of prosecution, the offense must carry a prison sentence of at least two years. Where a conviction has already been handed down, the remaining sentence to be served must be at least six months.
The treaty also allows either state to refuse to extradite its own nationals. Morocco is therefore not required to surrender a Moroccan citizen to Spain, just as Spain is not required to surrender one of its nationals. The country concerned may, however, initiate proceedings itself on the basis of evidence provided by the requesting state.
Other grounds may justify refusal. Extradition is notably excluded where the acts constitute a political offense, although terrorism cannot be invoked on those grounds. Nor can extradition be granted where the statute of limitations has expired, where a final judgment has already been rendered for the same acts, or where the offense was committed on the territory of the state receiving the request.
Rabat Challenges the Conditions Under Which Extraditions Are Carried Out
The difficulties raised by Abdellatif Ouahbi arise at the final stage of the procedure: the actual surrender of the person sought.
Article 13 provides that once extradition has been approved, the state concerned must communicate the date and place of surrender through diplomatic channels. The requesting country then has 45 days to send its officers to collect the person.
Once that deadline has elapsed, the individual must be released and may no longer be extradited for the same acts. A new date may nevertheless be agreed upon by mutual consent in exceptional circumstances.
If these facts are confirmed, this would not amount to mere administrative delays. The operations had been prepared and Moroccan officers dispatched to Spain, only for Rabat to learn that the person was no longer available.
Yet the entire architecture of the treaty is designed precisely to prevent this type of situation. Diplomatic exchanges, coordination between the justice ministries and the deadlines laid down in the text are intended to enable the two countries to organize each handover in practical terms.
For Rabat, this cooperation cannot operate as a one-way street. Nor can it depend on explanations provided after the fact, when extradition has already been approved and the necessary resources have already been mobilized.
Official figures also show that Moroccan requests are becoming increasingly numerous. The prosecutor’s office at Spain’s National Court recorded 11 in 2019, the same number in 2020, followed by 20 in 2021, 25 in 2022 and 41 in 2023. In four years, their number has almost quadrupled, making Morocco one of the countries that submits the largest number of extradition requests to Spain.
These statistics do not, however, indicate how many requests were approved or how many were actually carried out. Nor do they specify the number of operations canceled after the arrangements for surrender had already been made. They therefore do not make it possible to gauge the exact scale of the problem denounced by Abdellatif Ouahbi.
They do confirm, however, that these difficulties affect a growing number of cases and now concern an important component of judicial cooperation between the two countries.
No Suspension Overnight
For now, Abdellatif Ouahbi has issued a warning to Madrid. The treaty has not been suspended, and the minister has not announced that any official notification has been sent to the Spanish authorities.
Indeed, the treaty contains no procedure allowing its application to be halted immediately. Article 25 refers disputes concerning its interpretation or implementation to diplomatic channels. Article 27 allows either country to denounce the treaty, but such a decision only takes effect one year after written notification has been given to the other party.
International law also provides for the possibility of suspending all or part of a bilateral treaty in the event of a material breach of an essential provision. But the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires a state seeking to invoke this possibility to formally notify its decision, explain its reasons and specify its scope. If the other country objects, a dispute then arises between the two parties.
Read also : In Ceuta, Albares praises Morocco’s full cooperation
Before any suspension, Morocco would therefore have to define precisely the measure being contemplated, establish its legal basis and notify Spain. The minister’s statements increase the pressure on Madrid, but do not immediately call ongoing procedures into question.
An Essential Mechanism for Both Countries
Suspending the treaty would deprive Morocco and Spain of the framework that currently governs the extradition of wanted persons on either side of the Strait. Cases involving drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking, organized crime, fraud and money laundering would be directly affected.
Spain would no longer be able to require Morocco to carry out surrenders under the conditions and within the deadlines provided for by the treaty. Morocco would face the same difficulty regarding individuals arrested or located on Spanish territory.
The fate of proceedings already underway would depend on the scope of the suspension and any transitional measures agreed upon by the two countries.
That would not, however, automatically turn Morocco or Spain into a safe haven for wanted persons. Other avenues could be used, including domestic legislation, the principle of reciprocity or certain international instruments. They would, however, provide fewer guarantees, be more difficult to implement and risk considerably lengthening proceedings.
Suspending the extradition treaty would not bring all judicial and police cooperation to an end either. The agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, also signed in 2009, is legally separate. Intelligence sharing, letters rogatory and cooperation conducted through Interpol would not automatically be interrupted.
Extraditions and Repatriations Are Governed by Different Rules
Abdellatif Ouahbi referred to both extraditions and repatriations. Yet the two procedures follow different legal frameworks.
Extradition concerns a person wanted by the justice system to stand trial or serve a sentence. It is conducted through a judicial procedure subject to safeguards and oversight. Repatriation or readmission, by contrast, concerns the return of a person who does not, or no longer, meet the conditions for entering or remaining in a country.
According to Eurostat, 960 Moroccan nationals were returned from Spain in 2024, followed by 905 in 2025. The vast majority of these returns were enforced. A further 480 returns were recorded during the first half of 2026.
These figures do not necessarily cover readmissions carried out directly at the border. Nor do they include all the exceptional movements that occurred following the Ceuta crisis of July 30.
The case of unaccompanied minors falls under yet another mechanism. A bilateral agreement signed in 2007 provides for cooperation between Morocco and Spain to identify and protect them and, when the necessary conditions are met, arrange their return. Each case must be examined individually, in accordance with the laws of both countries and international human rights conventions.
The available figures nevertheless point to a very different situation. Spain reported to Eurostat no effective repatriation of an unaccompanied Moroccan minor in 2024, 2025 or during the first half of 2026.
This absence of returns gives full meaning to the position defended by Rabat. Morocco says it is willing to receive these minors, but considers that this willingness must be followed by concrete action. It is up to the Spanish authorities to initiate and complete the individualized procedures required by law and by the bilateral agreement.
Suspending the extradition treaty would therefore not cancel agreements covering repatriations, minors or mutual legal assistance. Abdellatif Ouahbi’s warning nevertheless reveals a malaise that extends beyond extradition cases alone.
Rabat considers that it fulfills its obligations when Madrid requests a specific surrender or form of cooperation. It now expects the same rigor when the request comes from the Moroccan justice system. Spain has yet to explain why certain extraditions that had already been approved were not carried through and to provide guarantees that such situations will not recur. Without a satisfactory response, the dispute could ultimately reach one of the essential mechanisms of judicial cooperation between the two countries.
