Growing concerns are being raised over the allocation of leadership positions within Regional Multi-Service Companies (SRM), amid accusations that such roles are being granted to individuals with influential connections—often described as relatives of officials or close associates—casting doubt on the principles of merit-based selection and institutional integrity.
Officially, SRM entities publish vacancies for key roles such as “Human Resources Management Officer” and “Information Systems Officer,” requiring candidates to hold advanced degrees (Master’s or State Engineer) and possess between six to ten years of professional experience. These recruitment processes are typically conducted through formal platforms like emploi-public.ma. However, criticism has increasingly focused on what observers describe as a lack of transparency in the final stages of selection and appointment.
Social media activists and commentators allege that certain candidates secure positions through favoritism rather than merit, pointing in particular to the institutional ties between SRM entities and government bodies. This has fueled broader concerns about the integrity of recruitment practices and equal opportunity.
Media reports have also highlighted controversial cases across several cities in the Kingdom, where leadership roles appear to be concentrated within limited circles. In some instances, questions have been raised about the backgrounds of appointed individuals, despite the strategic importance of these roles in managing public services and contributing to national development.
This controversy is further intensified by the fact that SRM job announcements—especially those related to the 2025–2026 recruitment cycles—explicitly require candidates for positions of responsibility to provide a clean criminal record. Any deviation from these conditions raises serious legal and ethical concerns.
Observers emphasize that any appointment made in violation of established regulations constitutes a breach of the legal framework governing SRMs, as well as the broader Public Service Law. Such irregularities could be subject to scrutiny and accountability measures by oversight institutions, including the Court of Auditors and competent judicial authorities.
