The absence of the traditional separation of powers, before the protectorate, does not necessary mean that the exercise of these powers by one single body, was synonymous with despotism. The sound implementation of Islamic law rules would not allow for such abuse.

Kings of the Alaoui Dynasty followed this rigorous and right path and were very keen on investigating complaints and rendering justice to victims of abuse and iniquities.

The most significant milestone of the evolution of the grievances system during this era was the creation of the all important Viziriate of Chikayats (Ministry of Complaints), entrusted with the mission to investigate individuals' complaints or grievances. It used to have wide competences; actions could be entered against abuses of administrative agents or unfair judgements rendered by judges or those deemed in violation of the rules of Islamic law.

The special care given by the Alaoui Dynasty to settling complaints was illustrated by the fact that the Minister of Complaints was a full member of the Moroccan government, just like the Prime minister (Great Vizir), the Minister of Foreign Affairs (the Vizir of Sea), the Minister of Finance (Amin Al-Oumana); and the Minister of War (Al Alaf).

The Minister of Complaints (Vizir of Chikayats) used to record the complaints presented to the Sultan against governors for their unfairness, abuse or embezzlement. He would summarize the complaints and submit them to the Sultan who by appending his signature would give legal force to inquiries, restoration of rights and sanctions. He could even annul those recourses, if they were not well grounded.

The role of the Minister of Complaints was to receive complaints and suggest solutions to the Sultan who was the only person eligible to render justice after consultation of scholars and specialists.

Dar El-Makhzen (Sultan's palace) was always wide open for complainants. Informal courts were held for all plaintiffs to lodge their claims. The Sultan used to receive ministers, transcribers and belligerents to give orders, decide sanctions and restore rights to those of his subjects whose rights were violated.

Most sultans of the Alaoui dynasty followed this same path.

Moulay Rachid used to hold weekly sessions dedicated to this type of affairs and to the repair of injustices. He was the first king to have accepted to stand as a party to a dispute before a judge.

His successor, Moulay Ismail used to reserve Tuesdays and Sundays to settle grievances.

Likewise, Sidi Mohamed bin Abdellah was known for his rigor in controlling governors and dismissing those convicted for misuse of power.

Similarly, Moulay Slimane and Moulay Abderrahmane concerned themselves by the grievances of their subjects and used to address letters to local officials to remind them of the abnegation and rectitude they must display in discharging their duties. The most famous of these letters was Moulay Slimane's letter to the authority officer, Ayyad.

Sidi Mohamed bin Abdurrahman also followed the path of his venerated grandfathers. His son, Moulay Hassan I exercised a strict control over governors, to prevent that they make use of their authority to confiscate people's property and prevent any affront to their honour and dignity.

Their successors, Moulay Abdelaziz and Moulay Abdelhafid also gave the same importance to rendering justice to citizens.

Under the Alaoui dynasty, eminent personalities headed the Ministry of Complaints, among these were :

- Minister Yahmdi and Faqih Abdellah Roussi (under sultan Moulay Ismail);
- Abdellah El Kassar and Mohamed bin Ahmed Akensous (under Sultan Sidi Mohamed bin Abdellah);
- Mohamed Seffar and Faqih Mesfioui (under Moulay hassan I);
- Ahmed bin Moussa (under Moulay Abdelaziz);
- Mohamed bin Kabbour and Fqih Abdellah Lemtouki (under Moulay Abdelhafid).

The admitted principle during this era was that any victim of an injustice or abuse could lodge a complaint with the Minister of Complaints who would record and forward it to the concerned authority, Governor, Caïd or any competent official. In general, when the complaints had some importance, an agent would be fielded to investigate on the subject and expedite the settlement of the dispute.

The very existence of a Minister of Complaints and his competence to look into the grievances of citizens against the abuses of authority is an irrefutable evidence of a the existence of a rigorous control system over the administration’s work before the protectorate. This being the situation of the judiciary system in general and the investigation of grievances in particular before the protectorate, what was the attitude of the protectorate authorities towards this system as from 1912?
Did they improve it to make of it an independent administrative judiciary system or did they set up a different judiciary system to serve particular purposes?

In his study on the Moroccan government before the protectorate, a researcher gave some clues of answer: “The Ministry of Complaints was the nucleus of two important institutions in the Moroccan public law, auguring a promising future. On the one hand, the ministry played the role of a ministry of coordination and control over subordinate authorities and of settlement of authority abuses. On the other hand, the ministry used to redress breaches of subordinate authorities in settling the disputes relating to the allocation of advantages, pensions…

Generally speaking, this ministry paved the way to setting up of an administrative judiciary system and allowed to fight against power abuses and public mismanagement.

It is worth mentioning that the concept of public interest was not absent in the policies of the government of independent Morocco: The Sultan is vested with a power to exercise a public mission consisting in leading the nation with the help of the Makhzen. This required of him to listen and settle the grievances and complaints resulting from the government and the administration work.

The concept of administrative judiciary system was among the pillars of the Moroccan governmental authority and was interlinked with other elements, such as the pardon request and administrative arbitration.

The major orientations of the government could have led to the setting up of an administrative judiciary system within the Ministry of Complaints, had the nation continued to enjoy its sovereignty. It is no wonder that the Ministry of Complaints be eliminated and the administrative judiciary system be absent when this sovereignty was inexistent”

Afterwards, the protectorate endeavoured to divide the complaints system into two divisions. One division was annexed to the Great Vizir and the other to the newly created Ministry of Justice.

The officers of indigenous affairs used to settle complaints. We can say that despite the reforms that were introduced onto it, the administrative judiciary system, including the complaints system of the time (1912-1956) was not efficient and did not provide enough guarantees for the rights and freedoms of individuals.