Levin asks court to appoint his original choice for Sde Teiman leak probe supervisor

Justice Minister Yariv Levin told the High Court of Justice on Tuesday that he had come to a “dead end” in his search for a supervisor for the Sde Teiman video leak investigation, and asked the court to reconsider his request to appoint State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula to the position.

Kula, who had been Levin’s first choice, had been disqualified by the court because he’s barred by law from carrying out any other function beyond his ombudsman job. This month, the court ruled that Kula’s second pick for the position, retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo, did not meet its criteria.

Levin told the court on Tuesday that since then, he has not been able to find anyone who meets the criteria, despite reaching out to numerous officials and state agencies.

The criteria the court set in a ruling in November stipulated that the investigation supervisor must be a senior civil servant with experience in criminal investigations and prosecutions.

“After the passage of nearly a month since the court’s ruling, and nearly two months since the investigation started, it turns out that giving the task to an official who meets all the criteria set out by the court cannot be implemented,” said Levin.

The investigation concerns the leak of a video purporting to show the abuse of a Palestinian security detainee by IDF soldiers at the Sde Teiman military detention facility from July 2024. In October, former military advocate general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted that she had authorized the leak.

The minister said he reached out to “dozens of officials,” including from the Competition Authority, the Israel Securities Agency, the Tax Authority, and the Public Defender’s Office, to fill the position of supervisor of the investigation.

However, he said, it had been difficult to find someone for the job, since some senior civil servants did not meet the court’s criteria, and because others who did meet the criteria refused to take it.

Levin said he was therefore asking the court to allow Kula to take a temporary break from his role as ombudsman for judges in order to supervise the Sde Teiman affair investigation.

In November, the court ruled that under the highly irregular circumstances of the Sde Teiman video leak case, Levin was entitled to appoint an investigation supervisor from outside of the Attorney General’s Office and State Attorney’s Office, as he had sought.

The court ruled, however, that Kula could not be the supervisor since the law for the state ombudsman for judges expressly prohibits the officeholder from carrying out any other function. But the court upheld Levin’s right to select a supervisor for the case, albeit with strict conditions.

Levin then picked Ben Hamo, but the court ruled on December 3 that since retired judges are not civil servants, he did not meet the criteria.

Justice Yael Willner wrote in that decision that the court had originally proposed that the Attorney General’s Office and Levin come to a mutual agreement for who to appoint as supervisor, and that such a figure could be a serving or retired judge.

Willner wrote in the December 3 ruling that if the parties came to such an agreement, the supervisor would not need to be a civil servant, because it would not be the justice minister, a political figure, making the appointment alone, but would rather be done in agreement with the criminal prosecution agencies. Willner noted pointedly in the court ruling that the sides could still agree to such a solution.

Following Levin’s request this week, the Israel Democracy Guard organization, which petitioned the High Court against Kula’s appointment in the first place, was asked to file a formal response to the court by Thursday.

The organization said in a press statement that it was “astonished by the justice minister’s brazenness” in requesting that the court change its ruling.

The Movement for Quality Government also objected to Levin’s request, saying he had not presented any proof that he had reached out to numerous officials to fill the post, noting he did not provide names, minutes, or other evidence in his submission.

It also portrayed the request as the latest step in Levin’s long-running feud with the court, whose powers he has sought to curb.

“Levin isn’t looking for a real supervisor for the investigation – he is looking for a reason to continue to argue with the court, to stick a finger in the High Court’s eye, and to fan the flames against the law enforcement agencies,” the organization charged.