The Legal Adviser to the Government, Attorney Gali Beharev-Miara, announced that she refuses the outline proposed by the High Court, according to which the appointment of retired judge Meni Mazuz for a period of 8 years as the chairman of the Advisory Committee for Appointments to Senior Positions will be canceled, and that his appointment will only be for the purpose of the urgent appointment of the Chief of Staff.
■ The government approved the appointment of Meni Mazuz as the chairman of the committee for senior appointments
In the background is a petition submitted by the Lavi organization through attorney Yitzhak Bam. According to Lavi, this appointment should not be made during a transitional government, due to the predatory characteristics of the decision. To determine the facts for the government that will take place after the elections. The ruling so far has been overly strict with the appointments during the transitional government period, and the appointment of the chairman of the advisory committee at this time is a deviation from the line outlined in a consistent ruling on the matter.”
According to the Lavi organization, “the appointment was made for extraneous considerations. The retired judge Mazuz is seen as a controversial person who is painted in strong political colors, and this is due to his statements both during his tenure and even more so after it. The observer from the outside may get the impression that the political color of the retired judge Mazuz is the basis of the desire of the prime minister to appoint him to the position of chairman of the advisory committee and leave this government’s legacy to future governments. This harms the public’s trust in the work of the advisory committee.”
urgency and vitality
The ombudsman in Rabbi Miara claimed in response that the urgency and urgency of appointing the chairman of the committee stems from the urgency and urgency of appointing the Chief of Staff, which cannot be completed without bringing the case of the minister candidate before the committee. Therefore, according to her, under the circumstances, there is a real need to fill the position, and this also during the election period.
Legal Adviser to the Government, Attorney Gali Beharve-Miara / Photo: Yonatan Zindel/Flash 90
According to the ombudsman, the decision to appoint a chairman of a committee at this time is in line with the ruling of the honorable court” according to which “the fact that the current government is a transitional government does not detract from its authority – and its duty – to prevent a situation in which important public interests will be harmed due to non- Vacancy of a certain position”.
The ombudsman objected to the possibility of a temporary appointment, and claimed in her response to the High Court that “although this option seemingly more fully fulfills the purpose of the election laws, it is not an appropriate option and does not provide a reasonable solution under the circumstances of the matter. This option misses the fundamental goal that stands at the basis of the government’s decision which establishes a rigid tenure for this position, which is supposed to sever the relationship between the members of the committee and the appointing level. In other words, the appointment of a substitute stands in contradiction to the purpose of preventing fear of dependence on the appointing level or the appearance of dependence on the appointing level, and it is not an adequate and reasonable solution under the circumstances.”