In a compact meeting room of a feminist organization in Rabat, about thirty participants gathered to discuss the Moroccan Family Code. The conversations spanned divorce, underage marriage, polygamy, inheritance, extramarital affairs, and the challenges faced by single mothers. A shared refrain emerged: the text itself must be rewritten from top to bottom, and the language and philosophy behind it should change as well.
Morocco faces pivotal months as it shapes reforms to its Family Code. Following a speech by the king in June of the previous year, the door was opened to redefining the law. Feminist groups mobilized to present a broad set of demands. There is a cautious sense of optimism among activists, tempered by skepticism about what can realistically be achieved. For now, the draft reforms are expected to be ready for submission in March.
This is seen as a second wave of reform for the Family Code, known locally as Mudavana. The code was revised in 2004, marking a major step in altering a text once treated as sacred. The changes then made it easier for a woman to pursue divorce, a shift that was met with strong resistance from conservatives and some religious factions. Nearly two decades later, feminist organizations worry that such movements might attempt to block upcoming changes.
Rghizlaine Benacir, a founder of the Jossour Moroccan Women’s Forum, joined the reform effort in 2004. “Back then we aimed for the minimum wage. It was a different climate, with heavy pressure from conservatives,” she recalls. “There was no mention of inheritance in 2004. Step by step, we moved forward.” But today, the context and the demands have evolved: “Now we seek a comprehensive overhaul of the Family Code at every level. It’s not about tweaking commas or a single clause; it calls for redrafting the entire framework,” Benachir asserts.
Divorce
Ghizele Moumoni, a lawyer and president of the Kif Mama association, entered feminism through her own divorce, describing it as a moment of stark inequality revealed by the Family Code. She notes that current law allows a father to retain 100 percent custody of a child, including decisions about schooling or travel, while the child’s day‑to‑day care is placed with the mother. The father’s visitation rights are limited, and remarriage by the mother often triggers automatic custody shifts toward the father. Moumoni criticizes this as a form of legal violence that harms the child and calls for shared custody that treats both parents as equals and keeps the child’s interests at the center.
The broader reform discussion argues that custody arrangements should involve both parents and be oriented toward the child’s well‑being, rather than reinforcing unilateral control by one parent.
Child marriage
A core demand from human rights advocates is the prohibition of marriage for anyone under 18, with no exceptions. The 2004 Family Code raised the minimum age from 15 to 18, but included an exception allowing a judge to approve a marriage if one spouse is underage. Activists say that this clause has effectively become a default. In 2022, nearly 14,000 marriage permissions for minors were issued, a figure that underscores the problem and the need for reform.
Most of these unions involve young girls in rural areas paired with older men. Two decades of practice have shown persistent discrepancies between law and reality, and advocates insist that the practice must be eradicated. They argue that turning 18 should be the essential threshold for marriage, because adolescence marks a period of growth and capacity for choices that the current system too often constrains. The movement contends that the law should not enable marriages that would deprive individuals of basic civil rights or the ability to pursue education and independent livelihood.
Beyond age limits, activists call for the abolition of punitive provisions tied to sexual relations outside marriage or adultery. They warn that criminalizing intimate matters can endanger women who report assaults, making it harder to seek help from authorities if rape or abuse occurs. The stance is that proving victimhood should not hinge on arbitrary proof requirements, and that the legal framework must protect survivors rather than penalize them. Citations present the view that reforms should empower women to seek safety and justice without fear of retaliation or legal reprisal.