Proposed 'Accused Law' Faces Legal and Political Hurdles
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
Opposition lawmakers plan to advance the "Accused Law" to prevent indicted individuals from forming a government, requiring a 61-seat majority. Constitutional law professor Adam Shinar deems the law problematic and politically meaningless, suggesting the High Court could disqualify it or delay its effect. He also noted that a "Netanyahu bloc" victory could lead to the law's immediate repeal, rendering it ineffective.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Opposition lawmakers plan to advance the "Accused Law" to prevent indicted individuals from forming a government.
- The proposed law requires a majority of 61 Knesset members to pass.
- Professor Adam Shinar believes the law is problematic and could be disqualified by the High Court.
- The High Court might postpone the law's implementation until after the next elections.
- A "Netanyahu bloc" victory could lead to the law's immediate repeal, making it politically meaningless.
Members of the current opposition in the Knesset are planning to advance legislation, dubbed the "Accused Law," in the next parliamentary term. This law aims to prevent individuals facing criminal indictments from forming a government or running for future elections. The proposed amendment to the Basic Law: The Government requires a majority of 61 Knesset members to pass.
Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of Yisrael Beiteinu, stated his intention to push for the law immediately after the 26th Knesset is sworn in, following the election of a new Knesset speaker. MK Ahmad Tibi has also declared his support for advancing the legislation. However, constitutional law professor Adam Shinar described the law as both problematic and politically meaningless.
Shinar explained that because the law would amend a Basic Law concerning government formation, it necessitates a 61-seat majority. He suggested that the High Court of Justice (Bagatz) might disqualify such a law if it is deemed personal, arguing it constitutes an abuse of constituent power. Alternatively, the court could postpone its implementation until after the next elections, especially if it's seen as targeting a specific individual, like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently indicted in multiple cases.
Despite potential legal challenges, Shinar acknowledged that the law could be seen as having important purposes, potentially preventing future situations where an indicted individual heads the government. He noted that the "change bloc" parties could argue that Netanyahu's case highlights the need for such a law to prevent future occurrences. However, Shinar emphasized that if the "Netanyahu bloc" wins the upcoming election, they could immediately repeal the law in the next Knesset, rendering it politically ineffective. He concluded that the law would ultimately face reality, either by being disqualified, having its implementation delayed, or being repealed by a victorious Netanyahu bloc.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Only Mako so far.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
