Israel’s Supreme Court Discusses Recusal Law Allowing PM Netanyahu To Direct Judicial Reforms

JERUSALEM (VINnews) — Israel’s Supreme Court on Thursday discussed petitions to cancel the amendment to the Basic Law, which states that a Prime Minister minister can only be declared unable to serve in a state of physical or mental incapacity. The law was intended to allow Netanyahu to serve as prime minister and direct judicial reforms despite being personally involved in legal processes and thus having a conflict of interest regarding the powers of the court.

The petitions were submitted by the Movement for the Quality of Government (MQG) and the Yisrael Beytenu party and were presented to a three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Esther Hayut.

The hearing commenced with lawyer Eliad Shraga, the chairman of the MQG , who claimed that “Defendant number 2 (Prime Minister Netanyahu) decided to carry out a governmental coup in the State of Israel. He decided to crush the judiciary, he decided to dismantle the rule of the law enforcement system, he decided to dismantle the institution of the Attorney General, he decided to dismantle the prosecutor’s office, the police – all the gatekeepers. From the Governor of the Bank of Israel to the Chairman of the Government Companies Authority and turn us into a borderline dictatorial state.”

Shraga continued: “Here is an entirely personal event, and the words were clearly said on the record. Just a few hours after the law was passed, Netanyahu already gave a speech and declared that from now on the conflict of interest arrangement does not apply to him, and began to involve himself in the matter of the Supreme Court.”

Hayut interjected at this point, stating that Shraga had focused mainly on describing a situation and not on legal arguments. “Sir, do you also want to make a legal argument, or continue to tell about our dire state of affairs?” said Hayut.

The Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, submitted a legal opinion that she would not defend the law as it should be invalidated on the grounds. Baharav-Miara claimed that the law was intended to improve the legal status of Prime Minister Netanyahu and allow him to avoid respecting the conflict of interest settlement regarding the judicial reforms.

The opinion stated that “An examination of the totality of the circumstances relating to the enactment of Amendment No. 12 to the Basic Law showed that our concern is a constitutional amendment fundamentally flawed and in its outcome, which is the product of the abuse of the Knesset’s constituent authority in an accelerated legislative process in order to improve its situation, the Prime Minister’s personal legal rights and allow him to act contrary to the ruling of the court.”

“There is a place for issuing a conditional decree ordering the Knesset and the Prime Minister to come and present why not to cancel Amendment No. 12 due to abuse of the constituent authority. Finally, it should be ordered that the conditional decree be turned into an absolute decree.”

The representatives of the Knesset and the Prime Minister asked to reject the petitions and claimed that the Supreme Court has no authority to interfere in the enactment of a Basic Law.

So far, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it has the authority to intervene in basic laws and annul them.

In the meantime, it was announced Wednesday night that the government is considering a move to file a motion to disqualify Chief Justice Hayut from discussing the reasonableness standard in a hearing set for September 12.

The government’s reasoning for the move is a scathing opinion that Hayut submitted against the law in a public speech last January. In her speech, Hayut explained why this is a dangerous change and even spoke against the motives behind the legislation. The government claims that Hayut cannot be a fair judge of a law which she has expressly and publicly opposed.