Lahcen Haddad challenges the conclusions of Amnesty International’s report, cited by some voices, including Cembrero, seeking by every means to implicate Morocco. The Moroccan academic and former minister demands evidence, without which such accusations amount to defamation.
Responding to those attempting to revive Amnesty International’s report on Pegasus, Lahcen Haddad points out that a supposedly exhaustive document does not turn vague conclusions into established facts. In his view, each accusation must be assessed separately against the evidence supporting it.
Señor @icembrero, que un informe sea exhaustivo no convierte sus conclusiones en hechos probados. Los 103 números identificados aparecen como posibles objetivos; eso no demuestra que todos esos teléfonos fueran infectados ni qué información se obtuvo. El informe aporta también…
— Lahcen Haddad, PhD (@Lahcenhaddad) October 1, 2026
He identifies four essential, logically distinct issues: the selection of a target, the infection of a device, the attribution of the attack and the intent of whoever commissioned it. The 103 numbers identified, he stresses, represent potential targets. Their presence in targeting records demonstrates neither that all the phones were infected nor what information may have been obtained.
Haddad notes that the report contains testimonies, documents and forensic analysis. However, detecting Pegasus on a device is not sufficient, in itself, to identify who ordered the attack or establish an unlawful political motive, he argues.
Amnesty says it corroborated an anonymous testimony. The former minister observes, however, that the public cannot examine all the sources or verify the complete chain of attribution. Following a comprehensive cross-check of the allegations presented, he concludes that the report provides no new evidence of Pegasus use in Morocco.
Recalling the Kingdom’s official denial, Haddad calls on the authors to make their evidence independently verifiable.
The report’s serious allegations, he insists, constitute neither a judicial ruling nor a definitive verdict.
