WATCH: High Court begins hearing on who will have authority over Sde Teiman leak probe

The High Court of Justice begins a highly charged hearing on the latest clash between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and the legal system, in this case over the Sde Teiman video leak scandal, which has stirred political passions and divisions in the country in recent weeks.

Following the admission by former military advocate general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi at the end of October that she herself had leaked a video purportedly showing abuse by IDF soldiers of a Palestinian security detainee, Levin said he was removing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara from oversight over the investigation and appointing State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula in her stead.

Levin justified his move due to the fact that the attorney general had had ultimate oversight over an earlier internal investigation by the military advocate general’s office into the leak, which recommended not opening a criminal investigation into the matter and was likely compromised.

Baharav-Miara refused to give up supervision of the case, rejecting Levin’s claim that she had a conflict of interest and insisting that Levin had no authority to appoint a different prosecutor. Petitions were subsequently filed to the High Court, with one requesting the court order the attorney general to recuse herself due to the alleged conflict of interest, and several others requesting the court countermand Levin’s appointment of Kula, alleging political interference in a criminal investigation.

In the meantime, the legal adviser to the Justice Ministry determined that Baharav-Miara does have a conflict of interest due to her involvement in the internal probe, and recommended she not be involved in the investigation. Baharav-Miara then sought to hand off supervision of the case to State Attorney Amit Aisman, but Levin argues that he is subject to the attorney general’s authority and therefore must also be excluded from the probe.

Baharav-Miara, for her part, has argued that Levin’s appointment of Kula constitutes a “dangerous precedent” for political interference in criminal investigations, and violates “basic principles regarding the independence of the law enforcement system… from the justice minister or any other member of the government.”