High Court Hearing Scheduled to Invalidate Amendments to Government’s Basic Law
Tomorrow (Thursday), an expanded panel will hold a hearing in the High Court regarding the invalidation of amendments to the constitution of the government’s basic law. The hearing has put the entire political system on high alert, with some members of the coalition openly criticizing attorney Gali Beharev Miara on the issue.
The fortification law, which has sparked controversy and debate, has raised questions about whether the legal system is trying to impeach the prime minister. The Knesset is set to approve amendments to the fortification law in preparation for the High Court hearing. Some fear that a decision against Prime Minister Netanyahu would bring the right-wing supporters to the streets.
The amendment to the law in question pertains to the regulations surrounding the arrest of a prime minister. It clarifies that the legal adviser to the government is not authorized to take a prime minister into custody. Previously, a prime minister could only be sent to prison once when health issues prevented them from functioning, as was the case with Ariel Sharon.
However, due to calls for the Legal Adviser to the Government to take Prime Minister Netanyahu into custody, the Basic Law of the Government was amended. The new amendment specifies that a prime minister can go into custody by their own announcement, by the government’s announcement, or by the announcement of the Constitution Committee in the Knesset. It also requires a large majority to declare the impeachment of a prime minister.
The amendment sparked controversy, leading to the legal adviser to the government asking the High Court to invalidate the basic law for the first time in history.
The ombudsman claimed that the fortification law is an “extreme case of abuse of the constituent authority.” They argued that the law was primarily established to serve Netanyahu’s legal needs. The ombudsman requested that if the court does not cancel the fortification law, its entry into force should be postponed until at least the next Knesset. In response, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that the court does not have the authority to interfere in fundamental legislation and emphasized the importance of equal voices for all citizens.
The Supreme Court is now inclined to postpone the entry into force of the fortification law. If the decision is made, it means that the question of whether the legal adviser to the government can send a prime minister to prison or not will remain unresolved until the next Knesset.
The main arguments surrounding the amendment center around the claim that it was established with the sole purpose of strengthening the status and office of a Prime Minister facing serious criminal accusations. Critics argue that the Knesset misused its power and the authority granted to it.
The Movement for the Quality of Government intends to hold a debate on the background and circumstances of the amendment’s establishment. They argue that the amendment contained a distinct and highly unusual personal flaw that aimed to change the rules of the game for a single player. They believe that the Knesset’s constituent authority has been misused and seek to have the amendment, or at least its applicability in relation to Prime Minister Netanyahu, declared null and void.
The Movement for the Quality of Government contends that the alleged personal flaws should be interpreted in a way that does not apply to a Prime Minister accused of serious crimes, who seeks to intervene in the law enforcement system contrary to the preventive arrangement they have accepted.
The outcome of the hearing will have significant implications for the future of the fortification law and the powers of the legal adviser to the government. It remains to be seen how the High Court will rule in this contentious case.