Ombudsman for Judges Accused of Overstepping Authority, Challenging Supreme Court
The Israeli judicial system is facing scrutiny as the current Commissioner for Public Complaints Against Judges, Asher Kula, is accused of exceeding his mandate and acting as an appellate court over the Supreme Court itself. Kula, appointed after a legislative change allowing political influence in the selection process, has allegedly assumed extensive powers far beyond those of his predecessors.
Critics argue that Kula is not merely adopting a different policy but is actively serving as a tool for political actors and entities hostile to the judiciary. His actions are seen as an attempt to diminish the Supreme Court's standing, criticize its decisions, and undermine the public's perception of its justices. This includes intervening in matters outside the ombudsman's purview, such as the observance of Shabbat by judges in their professional capacity.
Historically, the ombudsman's office has refrained from reviewing judicial decisions that could be appealed. However, Kula recently sided with Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi's complaint against Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and Justices Alex Stein and Gila Kenfy-Steinicz. The complaint concerned a delay in hearing Karhi's arguments in a petition challenging the expansion of radio frequencies for regional stations, a case still pending before the Supreme Court.
Kula's decision, which sided with the minister while the case was ongoing, is viewed as creating a chilling effect and an "equilibrium of terror" between politicians and judges. This is particularly concerning as the Supreme Court had issued an interim order freezing the expansion, and Karhi was not initially a party to the petition. The article contends that Kula's actions, including demanding explanations from justices on a pending case, create an absurd reality where judges must justify their decisions in real-time, contradicting the established norm of judicial silence on active cases.
This development follows closely after the Supreme Court ruled against Karhi's attempts to appoint members to the Second Authority for Television and Radio. Kula's decision is seen by some as an effort to shift the public narrative in Karhi's favor, portraying him as retaliating against the judiciary. Despite Kula's own admission that the minister ultimately suffered no harm, he issued a 27-page ruling, raising questions about the necessity and intent behind his actions.
