The Supreme Court ruled today (Thursday) that the Attorney General is authorized to make a conflict of interest settlement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that the provisions of this settlement bind him and he must act in accordance with them.
The focus of the petitions was the Attorney General’s opinion, which stated that in light of the indictment pending against the Prime Minister, he should refrain from the following: the law enforcement system and the courts, the affairs of witnesses and other defendants in his trial, certain areas of activity Affecting the criminal proceedings in his case.
Netanyahu, for his part, believed that the ombudsman did not have the authority to determine the restrictions that would apply to him in the course of fulfilling his role as prime minister, and that his approach to determining the existence of a “personal interest” was given to him.
The court, according to President Hayut, and with the consent of the Vice President, Justice Hanan Meltzer and Justice Handel, held that the reality in which a prime minister is indicted for serious offenses is an exceptional reality that requires extreme adherence to the principle of prohibiting a public office To be in a state of conflict of interest. The court added that one of the basic assumptions on the basis of which the formation of the 35th government was made possible by MK Netanyahu was that a conflict of interest arrangement would be made for him, and the prime minister even explicitly undertook to do so during the High Court hearing. More than ten months have passed since the 23rd Knesset disbanded and elections have been held for the 24th Knesset, but although for several months there has been a dispute between Netanyahu and Mandelblit on this issue, they have not been able to formulate an agreed wording and now the prime minister denies the adviser .
Supreme Court President Esther Hayut: “This conduct of the Prime Minister raises the question of the sincerity of his statements before the court regarding the formation of the government, which did not include any reservations regarding the involvement of the Attorney General in the process of formulating a conflict of interest arrangement.”
Relying on the case law in this matter from time immemorial – the court again ruled that the Attorney General is the authorized interpreter of the law for the executive, and his opinion is binding on the government and its members as long as the court has not ruled otherwise. With regard to the opinion on conflicts of interest, the court ruled that the Attorney General is authorized to formulate an opinion in this area for prime ministers and the prime minister in general and that this conclusion is strengthened given the fact that this is an area at the core of Mandelblit’s role. The court further ruled that heresy in the attorney general’s authority in this regard now contradicts Netanyahu’s previous commitments and statements before the court, and that in the past he also acted in conflict of interest arrangements made by the attorney general on other issues.
Notwithstanding his position regarding the counsel’s authority and regarding the status of his opinion, the Prime Minister agreed to accept most of the restrictions set out in the arrangement, except for three: one – concerns his involvement in issues related to the method of appointing senior law enforcement officials and their status; The second – for the election of judges to the Supreme Court; And the third – to the mechanism by which his avoidance of dealing with the case of witnesses and defendants in his trial will be ensured. The court rejected the first two reservations, but accepted the prime minister’s position that his avoidance of involvement in the personal case of defendants and witnesses in his trial would apply only where he, or any of the parties appointed to assist him in this regard – did know in practice that the same matter The government.
The court rejected the petitioners’ contention that certain restrictions imposed by the Adviser in the conflict of interest arrangement should also be applied to the Minister of Internal Security, noting that a conflict of interest arrangement is essentially a personal arrangement made for a specific person, in this case for the Prime Minister. Due to their political affiliation with the Prime Minister. The court added, however, that the Attorney General had informed the Minister of Internal Security and the other ministers concerned that they should refrain from liaising with the Prime Minister, regarding the issues listed in the opinion, which the Prime Minister prevented from engaging.
Finally, against the background of the delay in the appointments of many senior civil servants awaiting government approval, the court ruled that subject to the rules applicable to a transitional government, the government has a duty to complete these appointments as quickly as possible.