Candidate's Withdrawal May Prevent Legal Precedent, Preserve Future Candidacy

Lawyer Muhammad Dahla explained that a candidate's withdrawal from an election may help avoid a detailed judicial ruling that could set a negative precedent. Dahla stated that for Abu Shehadeh, this is not just a procedural matter but has future legal implications, as a reasoned decision to disqualify him could be used against him later. He believes that if Abu Shehadeh withdraws and no detailed judicial decision is issued preventing his candidacy, he might still be able to run in future elections, especially as time passes and the events prompting the disqualification requests fade.

Dahla also highlighted a more sensitive aspect: the potential use of a detailed judicial decision as a basis for future criminal proceedings against Abu Shehadeh. He noted that police and prosecutors could use the Supreme Court justices' reasoning in such a decision to justify opening a criminal investigation. Dahla clarified that the burden of proof in criminal cases is higher than in election disqualification cases, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas election courts can rely on different evidence standards.

According to Dahla, the absence of a detailed judicial decision means there would be no written judicial reasoning to rely on in the same way, potentially complicating any future criminal proceedings. He concluded that Abu Shehadeh's withdrawal at this stage could legally preserve his chances of running in the future while simultaneously reducing the risks associated with a judicial decision being used in subsequent criminal actions.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit had announced during the hearing on Abu Shehadeh's disqualification that a majority of judges favored the disqualification and suggested the candidate withdraw instead of a ruling being issued. This follows the Central Elections Committee's September 23 decision to disqualify Abu Shehadeh, with the final decision resting with the Supreme Court.