Supreme Court Weighs Minister's Power to Oversee Investigations Amid Conflict of Interest Claims

An expanded panel of 11 justices at Israel's Supreme Court, the "Bagatz," convened to address a critical legal and political question: when and under what circumstances can the Justice Minister appoint an external supervisor for a criminal investigation if the Attorney General and senior prosecutors have a conflict of interest? The dilemma surfaced in the "Patzarit" affair, concerning allegations that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara might need to testify about obstruction and misleading the court regarding the leak of a video from the Sde Teiman detention facility.

In November 2025, a three-judge panel ruled that Justice Minister Yariv Levin could appoint a state employee as an investigator, a power granted by law. However, the court stipulated conditions, including the severance of ties with the political echelon and maintaining the investigation's independence. The justices also rejected two candidates proposed by Levin. The current petitions aim to close a perceived loophole created by allowing a politician, not as a suspect, into a criminal proceeding. The petitions were filed by the State Prosecutor's Office and the Democracy Watch organization.

Arguments presented suggested a choice between two undesirable outcomes: politicizing the criminal justice process or a systemic inability of the prosecution to handle cases due to senior officials' conflicts of interest. One attorney argued for prioritizing the rule of law and the independence of criminal law enforcement over introducing a political element. Justices questioned why the Attorney General, with a personal connection, would be preferable to a minister without one, and expressed leniency towards conflicts of interest originating from the Attorney General's office.

Justices Vilner and Kenan-Steinich, apparently reacting to criticism of their previous ruling, focused on the specifics of the "Patzarit" case, arguing it presented an extreme situation justifying an exceptional solution. The Justice Minister's counsel defended his client's authority to intervene when conflicts of interest arise, with the Deputy President suggesting the value of ministerial oversight when the professional echelon is compromised.

A potential solution emerged: the minister's authority would be a last resort, activated only after a thorough individual conflict of interest assessment for all relevant prosecution officials. The discussion explored how such an investigator would be chosen, with suggestions ranging from the relevant ministry's legal advisor to a hierarchical procedure or even, humorously, a lottery. A consensus appeared to be that the choice should be made from within the system before involving the minister, and that the systemic inability to handle cases due to conflicts of interest should be minimized.

However, the President emphasized that the Justice Minister lacks the authority to declare a conflict of interest, returning the dilemma to the question of who determines it. While the "Patzarit" case had no dispute, ambiguous situations are possible. The petitioners seek to revise Levin's broad determination of conflicts of interest, including those below the Attorney General, and to narrowly interpret the minister's authority. Justices and counsel pointed to the clear statutory authority of the minister, but noted that ministerial powers are subject to judicial review, citing past instances where the Supreme Court limited ministerial authority.

At the hearing's outset, President Amit disclosed that his law clerk is the daughter of the minister's attorney, a disclosure noted for its potential implications given the minister's public criticism of Amit. The article also briefly touches on the potential implications for a candidate for Justice Minister, Tali Gottlieb.