Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Intervention in Military Prosecution Investigation, Denies Justice Minister More Time for External Oversight

The Israeli Supreme Court has dismissed a petition seeking judicial intervention in the management of the military prosecution investigation, known as the "Military Advocate General Affair." The court ruled there is no legal basis to interfere with the investigation's conduct or to prevent the Attorney General from making decisions in the case. It also denied Justice Minister Yariv Levin additional time to appoint an external supervisor over the inquiry.

The case stems from a leaked video from the "Sde Teyman" military facility, involving leaks by military prosecution officials. Previous rulings authorized the Justice Minister to appoint a senior state official to oversee the investigation to prevent political influence, but imposed limits on this power. The investigation proceeded under the supervision of senior police officials and concluded in February, with subsequent supplementary actions. The Attorney General and the State Attorney were found not to have been involved criminally or required to testify.

The court majority, led by President Isaac Amit, emphasized that the petitioners only sought external oversight after the investigation's findings were unfavorable to them, rendering their petition delayed. The court noted that the Justice Minister had refrained from exercising his authority to appoint a supervisor for months and had not requested such an appointment from the court. The Attorney General's second legal opinion, based on updated facts, concluded the State Attorney was not involved in relevant events and thus could continue to lead the investigation.

The ruling stressed that conditioning the investigation's completion on the appointment of an external supervisor would grant the Justice Minister undue influence over the investigation's pace, direction, and existence, risking politicization. Therefore, no extension was granted for appointing a new supervisor.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Mintz argued that the extraordinary sensitivity of the case, involving alleged leaks and false testimony by senior military law enforcement officials, necessitated appointing an external supervisor to ensure independence and avoid conflicts of interest. He contended that without proper oversight, the basis for the State Attorney's disqualification had not been sufficiently reassessed. Mintz also rejected the majority's delay argument, calling for a conditional order requiring the Justice Minister to justify why he would not appoint a supervisor.

The Supreme Court's decision effectively closes the door on further judicial interference and limits the Justice Minister's role in overseeing this sensitive military prosecution investigation.