Coalition passes judicial overhaul law taking over appointment of judges’ ombudsman
Law ends judges’ ability to choose the person who investigates allegations against them, says justice minister; Gantz slams ‘campaign of revenge’ against judicial system
A law dramatically changing how the state ombudsman for judges is chosen passed its third and final reading in the Knesset plenum early on Tuesday morning, following a full night of debate.
The controversial legislation, sponsored by Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman, is widely seen as giving lawmakers a greater say in how the justice system is run.
Rothman, the chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and one of the architects of the government’s divisive judicial overhaul agenda, welcomed the passage of his law, expressing hope that the next “ombudsman we appoint will do everything so that the judicial system will work better and win more trust from the public.”
“Judges have always resisted criticism,” he said. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The ombudsman oversees disciplinary procedures against judges. The role involves investigating complaints made about the conduct of judges, including how they manage proceedings over which they preside, the manner in which they conduct trials, and any misconduct outside the court.
At the end of such proceedings, the ombudsman can recommend that disciplinary measures be taken against judges and, if necessary, recommend that the Judicial Selection Committee remove a judge from office.
The new law creates a new seven-member committee tasked only with the appointment of the ombudsman. Any member of the committee will be empowered to nominate two candidates. The committee will then choose a new ombudsman based on a majority vote.
The bill’s passage in a 56-48 vote was also welcomed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who said that it will “put an end to the situation in which Supreme Court justices determine who will be appointed to investigate allegations against them and their colleagues.”
“This will improve public confidence in the judicial system and ensure that their hands are clean,” he said.
Under the previous system, the justice minister and the president of the Supreme Court had to agree on a candidate, and the Judicial Selection Committee then voted on their nomination.
But the makeup of the new committee would likely give the coalition a majority on the panel, removing the influence of the judiciary and the opposition from the process, something that has prompted accusations that the appointment is being politicized.
Under the new law, the committee for appointing the ombudsman will comprise seven members including the justice minister, who will chair the panel; the labor minister; an MK to be chosen by the Knesset; a retired judge to be chosen by the Supreme Court; a retired judge to be chosen by the presidents of the district courts; a retired rabbinical courts judge to be chosen by the chief rabbis; and the public defender.
Assuming that the chief rabbis — traditionally politically aligned with the ultra-Orthodox parties, which are part of the coalition and ally with the right wing — appoint a rabbinical judge who is inclined to vote with the coalition, the coalition would enjoy a majority on the committee.
The law, as passed, is significantly different from the legislation that was originally submitted, which called for the ombudsman to be appointed by the president following a secret ballot in the Knesset, with representatives of the judicial system cut out of both the nomination and selection process.
‘A campaign to delegitimize the judicial system’
The opposition has decried the legislation as part of Levin’s agenda to overhaul the judiciary and give the government greater control over its makeup, and ultimately to weaken it and make it less independent.
Slamming the law during Monday evening’s debate, National Unity party chairman Benny Gantz asserted that it was part of “a campaign to delegitimize the judicial system.”
“There is a large gap between a reform of the judicial system and a campaign of revenge that denies its legitimacy,” he said, alleging that future candidates for the position would be “beholden” to those appointing them, and promising to repeal the legislation after the next election.
Opposition Leader Yair Lapid also denounced the new law, tweeting that “instead of staying up all night to find a solution to recruit thousands of Haredim [to the military] or advance phase two of the hostage deal, the Knesset was up last night to approve a political scheme for the ombudsman for judges.”
“When we clean up the government, we will also cancel this scheme,” he pledged.
The position of ombudsman for judges has been vacant since May 2024 after the last officeholder, Uri Shoham, retired.
Levin and then-acting Supreme Court president Uri Vogelman were initially unable to reach an agreement on who the new ombudsman should be.
But Levin began boycotting Vogelman back in June 2024 and refused to meet with him and his successor Isaac Amit — first as acting president and since last month as permanent president — ever since, making the appointment of a new ombudsman impossible.
The Attorney General’s Office has criticized the bill both on substantive grounds, for what it said would be the politicization of the ombudsman’s role, and on the manner in which it was passed with a view to filling the vacant position.
Legal expert Dr. Guy Lurie of the Israel Democracy Institute said that the main concern of those opposed to the measure is that the ombudsman would “become a political tool in hands of executive to intimidate judges, and undermine the principle of judicial independence,” which would violate the terms of Israel’s Basic Law: The Judiciary and make it unconstitutional.
A conflict of interest
However, Rothman and other proponents of the bill have strenuously rejected these claims, insisting that the measure is necessary in order to uphold effective and objective oversight of judges.
Since the Supreme Court president currently has a veto, together with the justice minister, over the appointment of the ombudsman, Rothman argued that the judiciary had too much control over who reviews complaints against its members.
“One of the main problems that the bill comes to solve is that it doesn’t work when you appoint a person from within the system, and when the subject of a complaint has to investigate complaints about himself,” Rothman said of the ombudsman appointments process during a committee hearing in February.
“It’s a total disgrace that a person holds a veto on the appointment of a person who will investigate complaints about him, a moment after he is appointed to the position,” he added.
This was a reference to several allegations of misconduct made against Amit several days before he was appointed Supreme Court president, which have yet to be reviewed due to the absence of an ombudsman.
