Achraf Hakimi will stand trial in France over a 2023 rape allegation, with the PSG defender denying the accusation, prosecutors sending the case to court, and both legal teams disputing credibility, evidence, and claims of extortion.
Achraf Hakimi is set to stand trial in France after being accused of raping a young woman in 2023, a development that keeps one of the highest profile legal cases involving a top European footballer firmly in the public spotlight.
The PSG and Morocco right back responded on Tuesday via social media, saying he regrets having to appear in court but remains calm about what he believes the final outcome will be. His message focused on what he sees as the consequences of being formally accused, arguing that a rape allegation can be enough to trigger a trial even when the accused denies it and claims the evidence supports his version of events.
Hakimi position is that the judicial process will ultimately allow the facts to be examined openly and that the trial itself will provide clarity. He presented the situation as damaging not only to people who are innocent, but also to genuine victims, because, in his view, public debate can become polarised and the truth can be lost amid accusations and counter accusations. His public statement, while brief, shows he intends to fight the case actively and that he is framing the trial as the moment when the narrative will be tested under scrutiny rather than in media commentary.
The case has been moving through the French legal system for some time. Following the complaint, the Nanterre prosecutor office requested in August last year that the case be sent to court. That step indicates prosecutors considered there was enough basis, at least at that stage, for the matter to be examined by a trial court rather than being closed without proceedings. The complainant alleges that she met Hakimi through Instagram and later went to his home, where she says he touched her without consent and then raped her. The allegation involves both the question of consent and the sequence of events inside a private residence, which typically becomes central to the legal assessment in cases where there are limited witnesses and the accounts differ sharply.
From the defence side, Hakimi lawyer, Fanny Colin, has responded aggressively to the confirmation of the trial. Her argument is that the decision to proceed rests almost entirely on the complainant account and that the investigation was, in her description, obstructed by refusals to cooperate with certain investigative steps. Colin has pointed to the complainant refusal of medical examinations and DNA testing, the refusal to allow access to her phone, and the refusal to identify a key witness. In the defence framing, those refusals are presented as undermining the ability of investigators to test the accusation through objective checks, forensic indicators, and digital evidence that might confirm timelines, communications, and intent.
The defence has also raised the issue of psychological evaluations, claiming that two successive assessments indicated a lack of lucidity regarding the facts being alleged and noted the absence of post traumatic symptoms. This is a sensitive area in sexual violence cases, because trauma can present in different ways and the absence of certain symptoms does not automatically exclude harm. Even so, the defence is clearly signalling it intends to rely on that material to challenge credibility and consistency, particularly if the prosecution case depends heavily on competing personal testimony.
Colin has further stated that messages exchanged between the complainant and a friend exist, and that, according to the defence, they suggest a plan focused on taking money from Hakimi. She argues that these messages were allegedly not fully disclosed to judicial authorities and that they point to a motive unrelated to sexual violence. This aspect, if it becomes a major element at trial, could turn the case into a sharp clash over intent, transparency, and whether the complainant actions before and after the alleged incident align with her claims.
On the other side, the lawyer representing the alleged victim, Rachel Flore Pardo, rejects the defence portrayal completely. Her stance is that nothing in the case file supports the idea of blackmail or extortion and that the claim that the complainant had an ulterior financial motive is a diversion tactic that is frequently used in sexual violence cases. She is effectively signalling that the prosecution narrative will focus on the alleged conduct itself and on the complainant account, rather than allowing the process to be reframed as a financial dispute.
What makes cases like this particularly complex, beyond the public profile of the accused, is that they often come down to credibility, consistency, and corroboration. When there are no direct witnesses to what happened inside a residence, the court tends to examine surrounding evidence: communications before and after the meeting, travel details, timing, behavioural indicators, and any forensic information that exists. If one side argues that key investigative tools were refused, that dispute itself can become part of the trial, with each party presenting the refusals as either suspicious or entirely reasonable, depending on their legal strategy.
The fact that the complainant and Hakimi are said to have met through Instagram also draws attention to how modern interactions can complicate investigations. Digital contact can provide detailed timelines, but only if devices and accounts are available for analysis. If phone access is contested, then the trial may feature competing interpretations of what can and cannot be proven from available records, witness statements, and any platform data that may be obtainable through legal channels.
For Hakimi personally, the trial represents a major reputational and professional challenge regardless of the eventual verdict. High profile athletes often face parallel consequences: intense media coverage, public judgment, and pressure on clubs to clarify their position, even while legal principles such as the presumption of innocence remain in place. For PSG, the situation is also delicate, because it intersects with sporting priorities, commercial considerations, and institutional messaging. Clubs in these circumstances tend to keep statements limited, emphasising respect for the judicial process, while internally managing the impact on the team environment.
The language used publicly by both legal teams suggests a confrontational process ahead. The defence appears determined to attack the foundations of the accusation and to highlight perceived inconsistencies or investigative gaps. The complainant representation, in turn, appears prepared to contest any narrative that shifts attention away from the alleged act and toward motives or character attacks. That dynamic often results in a trial that is not only about what happened, but also about the reliability of each version of events, the interpretation of evidence that exists, and the implications of evidence that does not.
As the case moves toward court, the key question will be how the trial weighs the complainant account against the defence challenges, and what independent elements can support either side. Hakimi has said he is calm about the outcome and sees the trial as the place where the truth will emerge publicly. The complainant side insists the process contains no sign of blackmail and that attempts to cast it as such are a familiar deflection. With both sides staking out firm positions, the trial is set to become a major legal event in France and a major story in European football, with the outcome likely to resonate far beyond the courtroom.
