In damning submission, state says court should cancel promotion of indicted cop
State Attorney’s Office tells judges Ben Gvir’s promotion of Superintendent Meir Suissa ‘flagrantly violated’ police regulations, describes it as ‘underhanded opportunism’
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
In a blistering denunciation of the promotion of an indicted police officer to a senior rank by National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, the State Attorney’s Office told the Jerusalem District Court it should rule in favor of a petition against the appointment.
The state described the appointment process as “underhanded opportunism” and said in its response Wednesday to a petition against the promotion that police regulations for promotions had been “flagrantly violated” by Ben Gvir and the acting police commissioner at the time, Avshalom Peled — most notably the regulations over promoting an officer under indictment.
Ben Gvir, who was not granted permission by the Attorney General’s Office to obtain independent counsel, stated in a one-page filing added as an appendix to the state’s response that as minister he had full authority to make the appointment and insisted that there was no justification for judicial intervention in the case.
The state’s submission to the court was made in response to a petition filed by the Movement for Integrity in Government (Telem) against Superintendent Meir Suissa’s promotion, in light of the indictment against him filed in July for negligent behavior over an incident in which he threw a stun grenade into a crowd of protesters during an anti-government demonstration in Tel Aviv in March 2023, injuring a woman and traumatizing her.
Ben Gvir promoted Suissa to chief superintendent and appointed him as commander of the South Tel Aviv Police Station at the end of August, despite the Attorney General’s Office instructing the minister that the promotion was impermissible.
Suissa has yet to take up his new post, but is slated to begin serving as commander of the police station at the beginning of October.
In its response to the petition filed on Wednesday, the State Attorney’s Office pointed out that during police deliberations in May, it was decided that a decision on Suissa’s promotion was dependent on the outcome of the legal proceedings against him.
But three days after Suissa was indicted by the Department for Internal Police Investigations, Ben Gvir asked Peled, the acting police commissioner who was scheduled to end his tenure three days later, for his position on Suissa’s slated promotion, a necessary step before promoting an officer under indictment.
Peled issued a letter recommending Suissa be promoted on the same day.
“The recommendation, which was given in contravention of the General Officer’s Staff position… in contravention of the attorney general’s instructions… was transferred directly to the national security minister’s office without the relevant legal or professional officials being aware of it, in contravention of procedures,” the State Attorney’s Office told the court in its response to the petition.
The state’s response also pointed out that the input of the police’s human resources department regarding Suissa’s disciplinary problems had not been provided to Ben Gvir, as is required for such promotions.
“The appointment process for [Suissa] is littered with flaws, was done in flagrant contravention of proper administrative procedures and in contravention of accepted appointment processes used in the Israel Police, while excluding the relevant parties who were supposed to take part in this appointment procedure,” the State Attorney’s Office fumed.
It also pointed out that Suissa’s appointment is the only case in recent years in which an officer under indictment has been promoted to a senior position.
Suissa’s appointment was “underhanded opportunism done through establishing ‘facts on the ground’ while pushing aside the professional and legal officials in the police and the National Security Ministry,” the state concluded.
Ben Gvir’s office insisted, however, that there was no scope for judicial intervention in the administrative proceedings surrounding Suissa’s appointment.
“As the person regarding whom there is no argument that the legislature gave him the authority to grant the promotion in question, it is his position that this case should not come before the court at all,” wrote his office.
Ben Gvir’s office also condemned the Attorney General’s Office for not allowing him independent counsel in the petition.
“This state of affairs leaves no discretion to the court in the substance of the case, the respondent [the state] has joined [the position of] the petitioner. The state representatives have therefore emptied the legal proceedings of their content.”
