From the Liveblog of
Thursday, January 2, 2025
High Court okays most of Ben Gvir law, but nixes the part giving him control over investigations policy
Add ToI as a Preferred Source on GoogleJeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
The High Court of Justice rules to strike down a key component of a highly controversial law passed at the behest of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir granting the minister the power to delineate “general principles” regarding police investigations, including “the determination of fundamental priorities” for police investigations.
The court upholds, however, other aspects of the law handing the minister power to “delineate the policies of the police and the general principles of its operation,” including “priorities, work programs, and general guidelines.”
The decision to uphold the clauses of the law granting the minister more general authority was taken unanimously.
The decision to strike down the clause regarding authority over police investigations policy was made by a majority of five justices to four.
The decision is the latest in a series of rulings by the judiciary against the hard-right government, which coupled with the coalition push to overhaul the justice system has generated a slow-burning constitutional crisis between the two branches of government.
Petitioners against the law, including the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, argued in their petitions and in court that the law gave the minister excessive authority over police work and would politicize the police force, endangering democratic rights.
The petitioners objected to clauses in the law allowing the national security minister to “delineate the policies of the police and the general principles of its operation,” including “priorities, work programs, and general guidelines,” arguing that it allowed the minister to intervene in sensitive policing decisions, which could harm constitutional rights such as freedom of protest and freedom of expression.
ACRI and the Movement for Quality Government also strongly objected to a second controversial clause in the law allowing the national security minister to “delineate general principles in the field of investigations, including determining principle priorities.”
The petitioners argued that these powers in the minister’s hands could politicize law enforcement and undermined the independence of the police, and would therefore severely harm democratic principles.
In addition, they contended that the law put the minister in an institutional conflict of interest, since he would then be in charge of determining policy regarding investigating corruption and wrongdoing by public officials.
The Times of Israel Community.