TIA GOLDENBERG and MOSHE EDRI
Thu, September 28, 2023
Israelis protest against plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to overhaul the judicial system and in support of the Supreme Court ahead of Thursday's pivotal hearing, in Jerusalem, Thursday, Sept. 28, 2023. The hearing over a law that makes it more difficult to remove Netanyahu from office deepens a rift between the government and the judiciary amid months of turmoil in Israel.
(AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s Supreme Court on Thursday was hearing a challenge to a law that makes it harder to remove a sitting prime minister, which critics say is designed to protect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been working to reshape the justice system while he is on trial for alleged corruption.
The hearing is part of several pivotal court challenges against a proposed package of legislation and government steps meant to alter the country's justice system. It comes as Israel has been plunged into months of turmoil over the plan and deepens a rift between Netanyahu's government and the judiciary, which it wants to weaken despite unprecedented opposition.
The hearing is the second by the High Court on the law but was being heard Thursday by an expanded 11-judge panel, underscoring the importance of the deliberations.
Netanyahu’s governing coalition — Israel’s most religious and nationalist ever — passed the “incapacitation law” in March which allows a prime minister to be deemed unfit to rule only for medical or mental reasons. It also gives only the prime minister or his government the power to determine a leader's unfitness.
The previous law was vague about both the circumstances surrounding a prime minister being deemed unfit as well as who had the authority to declare it, leaving open the possibility that the attorney general could take the step against Netanyahu over claims that he violated a conflict of interest agreement.
Critics say the law protects Netanyahu from being deemed unfit for office because of his ongoing corruption trial and claims of a conflict of interest over his involvement in the legal overhaul. They also say the law is tailor-made for Netanyahu and encourages corruption.
Based on those criticisms, Thursday’s hearing is focusing on whether the law should come into effect after the next national elections and not immediately so that it isn't interpreted as a personalized law. A ruling is expected by January.
Dozens of protesters opposed to the overhaul gathered outside Netanyahu's private residence in Jerusalem ahead of the hearing, while Netanyahu's allies defended the law. Simcha Rothman, a main driver of the overhaul, told Israeli Army Radio that the court's decision to hear the case over the fate of a sitting prime minister was harmful to Israeli democracy and challenging the law was akin to throwing out the results of a legitimate election.
“The moment the court determines the laws then it is also the legislative branch, the judiciary and the executive branch,” he said. “This is an undemocratic reality.”
The government wants to weaken the Supreme Court and limit judicial oversight on its decisions, saying it wants to return power to elected lawmakers and away from what it sees as a liberal-leaning, interventionist justice system. The first major piece of the overhaul was passed in July and an unprecedented 15-judge panel began hearing arguments against it earlier this month.
The drive to reshape Israel’s justice system comes as Netanyahu’s trial for alleged corruption is ongoing. Netanyahu is charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three separate cases involving influential media moguls and wealthy associates. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing, seeing the charges as part of a “witch-hunt” against him orchestrated by a hostile media and a biased justice system.
Experts and legal officials say a conflict of interest arrangement struck after Netanyahu was indicted is meant to limit his involvement in judicial changes. After the incapacitation law was passed, Netanyahu said his hands were no longer tied and that he was taking a more active role in the legal changes underway. That sparked a rebuke from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who said Netanyahu's remarks and any further actions were “completely illegal and in conflict of interest.”
Critics say Netanyahu and his government are working to upend the country’s delicate system of checks and balances and setting Israel on a path toward autocracy. The overhaul has plunged Israel into one of its worst domestic crises, deepening longstanding societal divisions between those who want Israel to be a Western-facing liberal democracy and those who want to emphasize the country’s more conservative Jewish character.
Netanyahu has moved forward with the overhaul despite a wave of opposition from a broad swath of Israeli society. Top legal officials, leading economists and the country’s booming tech sector have all spoken out against the judicial changes, which have sparked opposition from hundreds of military reservists, who have said they will not serve so long as the overhaul remains on the table. Tens of thousands of people have protested every Saturday for the last nine months.
___
Goldenberg reported from Tel Aviv, Israel.
Israel top court weighs rules on removing prime minister
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel’s Supreme Court on Thursday was hearing a challenge to a law that makes it harder to remove a sitting prime minister, which critics say is designed to protect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been working to reshape the justice system while he is on trial for alleged corruption.
The hearing is part of several pivotal court challenges against a proposed package of legislation and government steps meant to alter the country's justice system. It comes as Israel has been plunged into months of turmoil over the plan and deepens a rift between Netanyahu's government and the judiciary, which it wants to weaken despite unprecedented opposition.
The hearing is the second by the High Court on the law but was being heard Thursday by an expanded 11-judge panel, underscoring the importance of the deliberations.
Netanyahu’s governing coalition — Israel’s most religious and nationalist ever — passed the “incapacitation law” in March which allows a prime minister to be deemed unfit to rule only for medical or mental reasons. It also gives only the prime minister or his government the power to determine a leader's unfitness.
The previous law was vague about both the circumstances surrounding a prime minister being deemed unfit as well as who had the authority to declare it, leaving open the possibility that the attorney general could take the step against Netanyahu over claims that he violated a conflict of interest agreement.
Critics say the law protects Netanyahu from being deemed unfit for office because of his ongoing corruption trial and claims of a conflict of interest over his involvement in the legal overhaul. They also say the law is tailor-made for Netanyahu and encourages corruption.
Based on those criticisms, Thursday’s hearing is focusing on whether the law should come into effect after the next national elections and not immediately so that it isn't interpreted as a personalized law. A ruling is expected by January.
Dozens of protesters opposed to the overhaul gathered outside Netanyahu's private residence in Jerusalem ahead of the hearing, while Netanyahu's allies defended the law. Simcha Rothman, a main driver of the overhaul, told Israeli Army Radio that the court's decision to hear the case over the fate of a sitting prime minister was harmful to Israeli democracy and challenging the law was akin to throwing out the results of a legitimate election.
“The moment the court determines the laws then it is also the legislative branch, the judiciary and the executive branch,” he said. “This is an undemocratic reality.”
The government wants to weaken the Supreme Court and limit judicial oversight on its decisions, saying it wants to return power to elected lawmakers and away from what it sees as a liberal-leaning, interventionist justice system. The first major piece of the overhaul was passed in July and an unprecedented 15-judge panel began hearing arguments against it earlier this month.
The drive to reshape Israel’s justice system comes as Netanyahu’s trial for alleged corruption is ongoing. Netanyahu is charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three separate cases involving influential media moguls and wealthy associates. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing, seeing the charges as part of a “witch-hunt” against him orchestrated by a hostile media and a biased justice system.
Experts and legal officials say a conflict of interest arrangement struck after Netanyahu was indicted is meant to limit his involvement in judicial changes. After the incapacitation law was passed, Netanyahu said his hands were no longer tied and that he was taking a more active role in the legal changes underway. That sparked a rebuke from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who said Netanyahu's remarks and any further actions were “completely illegal and in conflict of interest.”
Critics say Netanyahu and his government are working to upend the country’s delicate system of checks and balances and setting Israel on a path toward autocracy. The overhaul has plunged Israel into one of its worst domestic crises, deepening longstanding societal divisions between those who want Israel to be a Western-facing liberal democracy and those who want to emphasize the country’s more conservative Jewish character.
Netanyahu has moved forward with the overhaul despite a wave of opposition from a broad swath of Israeli society. Top legal officials, leading economists and the country’s booming tech sector have all spoken out against the judicial changes, which have sparked opposition from hundreds of military reservists, who have said they will not serve so long as the overhaul remains on the table. Tens of thousands of people have protested every Saturday for the last nine months.
___
Goldenberg reported from Tel Aviv, Israel.
Israel top court weighs rules on removing prime minister
AFP
Thu, September 28, 2023
Israel's Supreme Court president Esther Hayut and judges hear petitions against a law restricting how a prime minister can be removed from office (Menahem KAHANA)
Israel's top court debated appeals Thursday against a law restricting how a prime minister can be removed from office, as current premier Benjamin Netanyahu faces protests against the judicial overhaul.
Eleven of the Supreme Court's 15 judges sat to hear three appeals against legislation passed by parliament in March, which determined a premier can only be declared unfit for office due to health reasons.
The law also stipulated that a two-thirds majority in cabinet is required to take such a step, before the move is approved by at least 80 of the parliament's 120 members.
Opponents argue the legislative change was intended solely to benefit Netanyahu, because it removes the possibility of him being removed from office over corruption charges.
Netanyahu in May 2020 became the first sitting prime minister of Israel to stand trial over a series of graft allegations he denies.
Ahead of the Supreme Court session, dozens of protesters rallied outside his Jerusalem residence, where four people were arrested, according to the police.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin declared the hearing "an attempt to overturn the elections", in a statement published by his office.
He sits in cabinet alongside extreme-right and ultra-Orthodox allies who were elected in November.
Petitions tabled with the court demand the legislation either be scrapped or deferred until after the next elections.
The last time an Israeli prime minister was declared unfit for office was in 2006, when then incumbent Ariel Sharon was hospitalised and replaced by his deputy Ehud Olmert who held the post until the following elections.
The opposition subsequently sought to have Olmert removed from office, but the Supreme Court rejected their complaint.
Judges reached the same conclusion in 2021, when it ruled Netanyahu could stay in power despite the corruption charges against him.
He was subsequently booted out of office by the electorate, only to return to the premiership following November's election.
Since the start of the year, his government has been shaken by mass protests against its sweeping judicial reform programme.
The cabinet argues the overhaul is necessary to rebalance powers between elected officials and judges, while opponents say it paves the way for an autocracy.
Demonstrations held at least weekly since January have consistently drawn tens of thousands of protesters to the streets, making it one of the most significant protest movements in the country's history.
Israel’s Supreme Court to decide on law that could determine Netanyahu’s fate
Hadas Gold, CNN
Wed, September 27, 2023
Abir Sultan/AP
Israel’s Supreme Court is having a busy month hearing challenges to actions by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Within one month it will have heard arguments on three cases – including, this Thursday, petitions on one that affects Netanyahu most personally: an amendment making it more difficult to declare a prime minister unfit for office.
The law states that only the prime minister himself or the cabinet, with a two-thirds majority, can declare the leader unfit, and only “due to physical or mental incapacity.” The cabinet vote would then need to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the parliament, known as the Knesset. The amendment is a change to one of Israel’s Basic Laws, the closest thing the country has to a constitution.
The amendment was passed before legislation started on a judicial overhaul package, pushed by Netanyahu’s right-wing government, that has split the country and led to months of protests by those who argue that it chips away at Israel’s democracy and weakens its judiciary.
The petitioners in Thursday’s hearing argue the amendment was passed solely for Netanyahu’s benefit – he faces an ongoing corruption trial – making it a “misuse of constituent authority.” That’s one of the bases on which the Supreme Court can, in theory, strike down amendments to a Basic Law. However, the court has never struck down a Basic Law or an amendment to one.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments about another law, passed in July, that took away its ability to stop government actions justices rule to be “unreasonable.” It was also an amendment to a Basic Law. (The third petition is against Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who has refused to convene the committee that chooses judges, amid a dispute over its composition.)
Amir Fuchs, senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute’s Center for Democratic Values and Institutions, told CNN that never before have there been “so many challenges” in the Supreme Court to amendments to Basic Laws.
“(We’ve) never had so many hearings in the court so close together. This is a unique and unprecedented constitutional crisis,” Fuchs said.
What law was changed?
Until this law was changed, there was no written legislation that dictated how a prime minister could be removed from office for being “unfit” to serve, although Fuchs said there was some precedent with case law that indicated the attorney general could make that ruling.
“I do believe we did have a flawed arrangement before. It was too vague. It demanded an amendment,” Fuchs said. “But it’s very clear that the motive for this law was totally personal.”
That’s because there were petitions to declare Netanyahu unfit to serve because of his ongoing corruption trial. He is the first sitting Israeli prime minister to appear in court as a defendant, on trial for charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. He denies any wrongdoing.
As part of a deal with the court to continue serving as prime minister despite his ongoing trial, Netanyahu in 2020 agreed to a conflict-of-interest declaration.
The attorney general determined at the time that the declaration meant Netanyahu could not be involved in policy making that affects the judicial system – like the judicial overhaul. Certain aspects of the overhaul, Netanyahu’s opponents have argued, could make it much easier for him to get out of the corruption trial.
Earlier this year, when Justice Minister Levin announced the government’s plans for a judicial overhaul, Netanyahu said his hands were tied and he couldn’t get involved because of the conflict-of-interest declaration.
But in March, hours after the amendment making it more difficult to declare a prime minister unfit for office was passed, Netanyahu announced he was getting involved.
“Until today, my hands have been tied,” the prime minister said at the time. “We have reached an absurd situation in which if I’d intervened (in the judicial overhaul legislation) as my job required, I would have been declared unfit to serve … Tonight I inform you: Enough is enough. I will be involved.”
What happens in the hearing?
A preliminary hearing with three judges has already been held on this case. On Thursday, arguments will be heard again, this time in front of 11 of the 15 Supreme Court justices.
Normally the attorney general would put forward the government’s case in a Supreme Court hearing, but AG Gali Bahrav-Miara will not. She agrees with petitioners that the amendment should not stand, as she did earlier this month during the hearing on the “reasonableness” law.
The justices could strike down the amendment, declaring that the parliament carried out a “misuse of constituent power,” Fuchs said. That would be for passing legislation not for general purposes but for political purposes, to benefit a specific individual: Netanyahu.
Fuchs noted that the timing of the bill – raised and passed within just a few weeks – and on the record comments made during the discussions of the bill in parliament made it clear the purpose of the law was to protect Netanyahu.
The Supreme Court could also declare that the law “is not active right now,” and would only be active once the next parliament takes over. That could be a way out of a thorny constitutional situation.
“It takes away most of the problem because once you decide it’s only active next Knesset, it means it won’t solve any personal problem for Netanyahu and it gives time for the Knesset to re-think the arrangement,” Fuchs said.
The court decision must be made no later than January 12, 2024, due to the retirements of judges hearing the case.
What other challenges to the Israeli government’s judicial overhaul is the Supreme Court hearing?
The court must also decide by then on the petition against the law that struck down the court’s ability to declare government actions “unreasonable.” That is considered a much bigger challenge, and one where, for the first time, all 15 of the current Supreme Court justices took the case. The ruling on that petition is expected to take longer than the one being heard on Thursday.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is due to hear a challenge to the justice minister delaying convening the committee to select new Supreme Court justices. Netanyahu’s government wishes to re-formulate how justices are selected in Israel to give politicians more sway.
The committee was supposed to meet last week, but Levin postponed the meeting.
“It’s very important even though it is [an] administrative issue, not a petition against a basic law,” Fuchs said of the challenge, since Levin could be ordered to follow a court ruling on an essential element of the judicial overhaul.
But the real crisis could come after the Supreme Court issues all three rulings, Fuchs said, if Netanyahu and his government choose to defy them. Despite repeated questions from CNN among others, he has yet to commit to following them.
“This is in the hands of the government because they can accept the decision. Even though (Netanyahu is) avoiding the question on whether he will abide by the decision, doesn’t mean he won’t,” Fuchs said.
No comments:
Post a Comment