MK Shlomo Karai addressed the President of the Supreme Court this evening (Sunday), Esther Hayut, requesting that you replace Judge Ruth Ronan in the panel that hears the petition against the appointment of Manny Mazuz. This request comes after the publication in the Globes newspaper that the prosecutor is suspected to be a friend of Ruth Ronen, despite this she did not prevent herself from discussing the case nor did she give “due disclosure” to the parties at the beginning of the procedure, about the connection that was not known to the organization that submitted the petition.
On a crossroads: the High Court left the choice to the ombudsman, now she will decide Prof. Friedman
Baruch read about the Mezuz appointment storm: “The Yamesh had to compromise”
In his letter, MK Karai stated that “It is true that the legal advisor to the government was not a party to the proceedings personally, but at the institutional level as someone who represents the prime minister and the government, but in this specific matter, the petition attacked the legal position of the ombudsman who approved Mazuz’s appointment, And it is clear to everyone that her prestige and professional status are at stake.”
“Is it really possible to divide between a party to the proceedings personally and a party to the proceedings at the institutional level under these circumstances? Is a judge, as esteemed as she may be, able to completely detach herself from the considerations of the companies, when she is aware of the meaning that will be given to her words and decisions on the honor of her friend, who is a party to the proceedings in the face of the public debate The big one going on? The aforementioned petition is at the heart of the public discourse and therefore must be clarified and seen as completely free of any extraneous consideration,” he added.
As I recall, in the hearing of the petition of the “Lavi” organization against the appointment of Mazuz to the post by the transitional government, the High Court judges hinted to the state to consider canceling Mazuz’s appointment for eight years, and made it a temporary appointment for the purpose of appointing the next Chief of Staff only. During the hearing, the judges of the High Court of Justice challenged the representatives of the attorney’s office on the question of why Mazuz was appointed for eight years. The attorney’s office argued that this was intended to allow the chairman of the committee to maintain his independence vis-à-vis the government.
Advocate Gali Beharev Miara rejected the judges’ proposal, despite the fact that the petition is against the government’s decision. She refuses the offer, without consulting with Prime Minister Yair Lapid, and without the issue being brought to the attention of the members of the government. Later, he issued a conditional order to the state, which will explain why it insists on Mazuz’s appointment. This means that Mezuz will receive the appointment of Head Oak for the appointment of the Chief of Staff only.