Attorney Gali Beharve-Miara has responded to the High Court stating that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had violated the conflict of interest settlement in his recent speech. However, there is no valid reason to respond to the request of dishonoring the court. The response proceeded to state that the words spoken by the Prime Minister, particularly his intent to engage in initiatives related to the judicial system, were tainted by a conflict of interest. Moreover, the Prime Minister must uphold the law and avoid acting in a conflict of interest. The Prime Minister’s coalition has been promoting changes in the justice system, which he is also expected to benefit from in relation to his trial. The legal advisor has the responsibility to clarify the relevant restrictions regarding conflict of interest in this situation; failure to adhere to these restrictions could result in the Prime Minister violating the law. If the Prime Minister disagrees with the implemented restrictions, he can raise his concerns in court.
Attorney Gali Beharve-Miara replied to the High Court a short time ago (Monday) that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, according to her, violated the conflict of interest settlement in his speech, but there is no reason to respond to the request that he has dishonored the court.
The response on her behalf reads: “Although the words delivered by the Prime Minister on March 23, 2023, including his stated intention to now engage directly in initiatives concerning the judicial system, constitute an action tainted by a conflict of interest, there is no reason to grant the request.
In order to establish, from a legal point of view, a defamation claim, certain conditions must be met, which are not met in the current state of affairs. The position of the Legal Adviser to the Government regarding the request does not change the Prime Minister’s duty to uphold the law and avoid acting in conflict of interest.
As I recall, the court has already determined that the conflict of interest in which the Prime Minister is found is unusual in its nature and intensity. In this exceptional situation, the Prime Minister must be extremely careful about the rule that prohibits action in a situation of conflict of interest.
The coalition headed by the Prime Minister promoted initiatives for fundamental changes in the justice system, which if implemented are also expected to benefit him compared to the current situation, as far as his trial is concerned.
The legal advisor to the government has the duty, which is required by the law and the ruling of the court, to clarify what are the relevant restrictions in the field of conflict of interest that apply in this situation.
Without setting relevant limits and adhering to them, the Prime Minister may be found in a systematic and declared violation of the law.
To the extent that the Prime Minister disagrees with the manner of implementation of the established restrictions, he can raise his claims before the court as part of an appropriate procedure.”