Morocco’s new stray animal law could allow dogs to be shot and poisoned, campaigners warn

A new law claiming to protect Morocco’s stray animals could allow healthy dogs to continue being shot, poisoned or killed behind closed doors, campaigners have warned.

Moroccan authorities have repeatedly denied operating a national dog-culling campaign. Mohammed Roudani, a senior official within the Interior Ministry, said in February 2025 that reports of a plan to kill three million dogs before the World Cup were “completely unfounded”, insisting that local authorities were pursuing ethical and sustainable solutions based on sterilisation, vaccination and release.

Interior Minister Abdelouafi Laftit has also said Morocco’s operations respect animal-welfare principles and described Law 19.25 as balancing animals’ right to life with public safety. Campaigners maintain that evidence from the ground contradicts those assurances.

The International Animal Coalition (IAWPC), which represents 83 global animal welfare organisations, has expressed continuing serious concerns following the adoption of amended Draft Law 19.25, entitled “Relating to the Protection of Stray Animals, their Care and the Prevention of their Dangers”.

Campaigners say crucial parts of the legislation remain unclear, with a substantial portion of its content deferred to implementing regulations which have not yet been drafted.

Under Article 55, these texts may be published up to two years after the law itself enters into force. Until then, provisions requiring implementing regulations will not take effect and their practical scope cannot be assessed with certainty.

The IAWPC has also identified major “definitional gaps” within the law.

Key terms used to trigger obligations and defences remain undefined, including “unjustified” killing under Article 3, an “appropriate” or “suitable” environment under Article 13(9), “exceptional cases” under Article 51 and the species covered by the term “stray animal” under Article 2.

Campaigners fear this could lead to inconsistent interpretations by communal agents, oversight committees and courts.

Article 3 requires stray animals to be protected from disease and from “unjustified killing, torture, violence or ill-treatment”.

However, the word “unjustified” was added through an amendment.

The IAWPC says its inclusion, alongside the power to “intervene” in “exceptional cases” under Article 51, weakens the protection offered by the legislation because it does not explain when killing an animal would be considered justified.

Without objective criteria, campaigners fear the wording could become a broad and uncontrolled exception, allowing dogs to continue being shot, poisoned or caught and killed.

Les Ward MBE, president of the IAWPC, said: “A law claiming to protect stray animals cannot leave the killing of healthy dogs hidden behind vague phrases, undefined exceptions and regulations that may not appear for another two years. It demands an unequivocal declaration that the culling/killing of healthy stray animals as a means of population control is prohibited”.

The coalition has also raised serious concerns about what it describes as the “criminalisation of compassionate care” under Article 5.

In the absence of detailed implementing texts, the provision could potentially be applied to informal and community-based feeding, sheltering or treatment undertaken by individuals or civil society organisations.

Comparable regulatory frameworks recognise that such work can contribute to animal population and disease management rather than undermine it.

The IAWPC argues that denying basic care to stray animals breaches fundamental principles of welfare and compassion while undermining the work of communities, volunteers and NGOs providing food, shelter and veterinary treatment where government resources are insufficient.

It says criminalising care would directly conflict with recommendations from the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the World Health Organisation and numerous international animal welfare declarations, which endorse community engagement as an essential part of humane animal management.

Further concerns surround Article 13(8), which permits animals to be euthanised at care centres “under the supervision of a veterinarian”.

Campaigners say this is the only stated safeguard. The legislation does not require documented clinical criteria, mandatory safeguards, independent monitoring, a second opinion or review, a written record of the decision or reporting to the oversight committee established under Article 24.

The IAWPC says this offers a materially lower level of procedural protection than is typical of euthanasia provisions in comparable animal welfare frameworks and could lead to the possibility, or suspicion, of secretive killings behind closed doors.

Article 51, covering exceptional administrative intervention, has been described by the coalition as the least constrained provision in the amended law.

It specifies no method of intervention, whether lethal or non-lethal, and does not require veterinary or other professional involvement or prior authorisation.

It also fails to define an “intervention”, an “exceptional case” or a threat to “public order and security”.

The IAWPC warns the provision could therefore be interpreted as an open-ended exception, undermining the legislation’s core purpose of protecting stray animals from “every threat to their safety”, rather than functioning as a narrowly defined emergency power.

Other measures causing concern include Articles 32 and 33, which grant powers to enter private residences and seize dogs.

These provisions empower administrative agents or representatives of communes, rather than judicial police officers alone, to enter “all public and private places” without a prior judicial warrant.

They also permit animals to be seized based on allegations and held at the alleged offender’s expense. The IAWPC says both articles invert the presumption of innocence.

The coalition has sent its comments and recommendations to the Moroccan Government and the Houses of Representatives and Councillors.

It has again called for the killing of dogs to end immediately and be replaced by humane Catch-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return programmes, or equivalent sterilisation schemes.

These measures should form part of a comprehensive national programme of humane dog management incorporating community engagement, education and law enforcement, the coalition said.

It has also called for all animals leaving care centres or similar establishments to be sterilised.

As Morocco is a country where rabies is endemic, the coalition argues that mass vaccination and sterilisation strategies aligned with international standards should be adopted nationwide to safeguard human and animal health.

This approach was expressly recognised in the King of Morocco’s Partnership & Cooperation Agreement of 2019.

Campaigners warn that killing dogs creates a “vacuum effect”, in which removed animals are rapidly replaced by unsterilised dogs. This can increase the number of animals susceptible to disease and prolong transmission cycles.

The IAWPC said Morocco “remains an outlier” in the way it treats its dogs.

Les Ward commented: “Most countries recognise the sentience of animals and the strength of public opinion against cruelty and killing.

“Across North Africa and Middle East regions, there has been a consistent move towards humane and effective methods of rabies control and dog population management using vaccination and sterilisation and not killing, this is a move that Morocco has disappointingly failed to adopt”.