Opposition MK: Coalition bill seeks ‘complete takeover’ of judicial complaints system
Deputy AG criticizes bill to change appointment process for judges’ ombudsman for ‘changing the rules of the game during the game’
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
Opposition MKs have denounced legislation being advanced by the coalition to change the way in which the ombudsman for judges is appointed, accusing the government of politicizing the process and by extension the complaints and oversight mechanism for judges itself.
Democrats MK Gilad Kariv said on Tuesday that the bill was “a complete takeover by the government and the coalition” of the ombudsman’s role, which could weaponize the complaints process, while the deputy attorney general implied that the coalition was advancing the legislation for its own political benefit.
At the same time, opposition MKs filed a complaint to Knesset legal adviser Sagit Afik on Tuesday night, requesting that she intervene in what the opposition members said were severe violations of legislative procedure by Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee MK Simcha Rothman, who is advancing the bill.
Rothman introduced changes to the legislation on Monday afternoon and held a hearing of just 45 minutes on Tuesday, with the intention of bringing the bill to a vote in the committee next week, legislation which opposition MKs have labeled part of the government’s “judicial overhaul” agenda.
MKs Karine Elhrarrar, Gilad Kariv and Yoav Segalovich, all opposition members of the Constitution Committee, accused Rothman of violating numerous legislative procedures, and called on Afik to intervene and ensure that proper procedure is followed.
The draft legislation would if passed into law switch the power to appoint the ombudsman for judges from the Judicial Selection Committee to a new seven-member committee tasked only with this one appointment.
But the make-up of the committee would likely give the current coalition a majority on the panel, which has prompted the accusations that the appointment was being politicized.
According to the new draft of the legislation, the committee for appointing the ombudsman will be comprised of 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 chose by the Supreme Court; a retired judge to be chosen by the presidents of Israel’s district courts; a retired rabbinical courts judge to be chosen by the chief rabbis; and the public defender.
Assuming that the chief rabbis, who are currently politically aligned with the ultra-Orthodox political parties that are coalition members, appoint a rabbinical judge who is inclined to vote with the coalition, the coalition would be likely to enjoy a majority on the committee.
The position of ombudsman for judges has been vacant since May 2024 after the last office-holder, Uri Shoham, retired. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and then-acting Supreme Court president Uri Vogelman were unable to reach an agreement on who the new ombudsman should be, and Levin has boycotted Amit since he took over from Vogelman in October last year, generating an ongoing stalemate over the ombudsman appointment.
Rothman rejected the allegations made against him during Tuesday’s hearing and maintained that the new law would actually reduce government control over the process since the justice minister would no longer have a veto over the appointment
He also said the new draft represented a compromise over a previous version of the bill he had initially advanced, whereby the Knesset plenum would elect the ombudsman, a process which would give the coalition total control over the appointment.
Rothman also insisted that the current system was flawed since it allows the Supreme Court president to block an appointment, which, according to Rothman, allows the court to ensure that the ombudsman is not overly critical or independence of the judiciary itself.
Voting on the bill in the committee could begin as early as next week and, if approved, would then go for its final readings in the Knesset plenum for passage into law.
Writing to Afik, the three opposition MKs complained that Rothman wanted the new legislation to take effect immediately; noted that the committee had not received an updated legal opinion on the bill following Rothman’s latest changes; and said the proposal lacked key details. “We request your intervention in order that the legislative process for the legislation continues in a proper manner before a final draft is brought for a vote,” they asked the Knesset legal adviser.
In a hearing on Monday, Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky suggested amending the legislation to give “greater expression” to professional elements on the committee than political representatives.
She was also strongly critical of changing the manner in which the way the coalition was legislating a bill for how an ombudsman is elected while the position is vacant, saying it amounted to “changing the rule of the game, during the game.”
Rothman rejected her comments, implying they were ideologically motivated, and insisted the current system was in need of change.
Kariv was however emphatic in his condemnation of the bill, saying in Tuesday’s hearing that it would allow Levin and Rothman to take control of the office of the ombudsman, and that the law was “a totally judicial overhaul law.”
Said Kariv: “This is a complete takeover by the government and the coalition of the important role of the ombudsman for judges. The MK said the law would continue a trend in which judges are “marked out” for attack “because of their judicial positions and the manipulative use of the institution of complaints against judges in order to spread fear, interfere with balanced debate and silence judicial positions.”
During Monday’s hearing on the bill, Sompolinsky focused heavily on her procedural concerns about changing the law while the position is vacant.
She pointed specifically to the way in which the law excludes the president of the Supreme Court entirely, compared to the current system where the justice minister and the Supreme Court president need to agree on a candidate before bringing them to a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee.
“Changing the players on the game board whilst moving raises substantive difficulties which the Supreme Court has rejected, so the [new] arrangement should take effect prospectively,” she said, meaning after the next ombudsman is chosen.
“The Supreme Court president is being removed from the picture, and the justice minister needs to come to agreements with other parties who are entering the game,” she noted.
“This is the very definition of changing the rule of the game during the game,” she continued, adding in the face of hostility to her comments from coalition MKs that “this is a phenomenon that is increasing in this Knesset.”
Rothman claimed that Sompolinsky and the attorney general had demonstrated a double standard regarding other legislation which would be immediately applicable where legal representatives had a majority.
And he also argued that his bill would reduce government control of the process.
“In the current situation, the justice minister holds a complete veto on the question of who will be appointed, a 100% coalition veto,” said Rothman.
“One of the main problems that the bill comes to solve is that it doesn’t work when you appoint a person who is the flesh and blood of the system, and when the subject of a complaint has to investigate complaints about himself,” said Rothman of the current ombudsman appointments process.
“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, in reference to allegations of misconduct against Amit made several days before he was appointed Supreme Court president.
