Proposed 'Accused Law' Faces Legal and Political Hurdles
Translated & summarized from N12 by baba
Opposition lawmakers in Israel plan to pass a "Accused Law" to prevent indicted individuals from forming a government, targeting Benjamin Netanyahu. Constitutional law professor Adam Shenar calls the law "problematic and meaningless," citing potential Supreme Court disqualification or delayed implementation. He also noted that a future Netanyahu-led majority could simply repeal the law, rendering it politically insignificant.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Opposition lawmakers plan to pass an "Accused Law" to prevent indicted individuals from forming a government.
- Professor Adam Shenar described the proposed law as "problematic and meaningless."
- The law requires 61 Knesset votes and faces potential Supreme Court challenge.
- The Supreme Court could disqualify the law or postpone its effective date.
- A future Netanyahu-led majority could repeal the law, making it politically insignificant.
Members of the current opposition in Israel are planning to advance a controversial bill, dubbed the "Accused Law," in the next Knesset session. The proposed legislation aims to prevent individuals facing criminal indictments from forming a government or running for future elections. This move, spearheaded by figures like Avigdor Lieberman, chairman of Yisrael Beiteinu, and MK Ahmad Tibi, seeks to bar Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently on trial in multiple cases, from future political leadership.
However, the bill faces significant obstacles. Professor Adam Shenar, a constitutional law lecturer, described the law as both "problematic and meaningless." He explained that amending the Basic Law: Government, which dictates who can form a government, requires a supermajority of 61 Knesset members, not a simple majority. Furthermore, Shenar suggested that the Supreme Court (Bagatz) could potentially strike down the law if it is deemed personal or an abuse of constituent power. Alternatively, the court might postpone its effective date to future elections, arguing against retroactive application.
Shenar elaborated that for such a law to be constitutional, it must be general, stable, and align with Israel's constitutional framework. A law specifically targeting an individual, like Netanyahu, could be seen as a misuse of constituent authority. While the court might not disqualify the law entirely, it could delay its implementation. Proponents of the bill might argue that Netanyahu's situation highlights the need to prevent future occurrences of a prime minister facing indictment.
Politically, the opposition bloc would need to cooperate with Arab parties to secure the necessary 61 votes. Even if the law survives judicial review, Shenar believes it would ultimately be politically insignificant. He stated that if the "Netanyahu bloc" wins a majority in the next election, they could immediately repeal the law before a government is even formed, thereby enabling Netanyahu to form a government. Shenar concluded that the law would likely be disqualified, have its effect postponed, or be repealed by a future Netanyahu-led government.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Only N12 so far.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
