Court denies Levin’s 2nd request to let his candidate run Sde Teiman leak probe

‘This is the look of a system that has lost all shame’ and is ‘desperately clinging to its power,’ justice minister fumes; court says it can choose someone if he can’t

The legal quagmire over an explosive video leak showed no signs of clearing up on Tuesday, after the High Court of Justice again rejected Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s top candidate to lead an investigation into the scandal.

In response, Levin launched a diatribe at the court, accusing it of “desperately clinging to its power.”

The decision means that the court battle over the probe into leaked footage of alleged abuse of a Palestinian inmate at the Sde Teiman military detention facility will continue. Even though the investigation lacks a supervisor, police have said that the probe will be wrapped up in the coming days or weeks.

Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the former military advocate-general, has admitted she authorized the leak off the footage and faces criminal charges. The court has empowered Levin to choose someone to oversee a probe into the leak, but has set limitations on who he can select. So far, the court has nixed his first two choices.

Levin then asked the court again to allow him to appoint his initial candidate,  State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula, whom the judges had already rejected due to explicit stipulations in the law that the state ombudsman for judges may serve in no other role.

Levin sent what he called a “clarification” to the court last week, saying he could not find anyone who met the court’s criteria. He suggested again that he be allowed to appoint Kula, provided the ombudsman take a temporary leave from his position.

But in its Tuesday decision rebuffing Levin’s request, the High Court said there was no procedure in the court for a “clarification.” The court added that Levin was actually asking for a “pre-ruling” on whether Kula could serve in the position if he took temporary leave, but said that the court would not rule on hypothetical “future administrative actions.”

Even if the procedural issues were not a problem, the court said that the restrictions on the state ombudsman for judges apply even if he is on leave — including the prohibition on holding an additional role.

The justices concluded that if Levin cannot find someone else who is suitable to run the investigation, he could request that the High Court appoint one for him. The court had suggested that possibility in a previous decision as well.

“Due to the urgency and importance of the appointment of a supervisor for the investigation, which the respondent [Levin] has himself asserted in his request, it would seem that if the respondent desires to make such a request, he should do so as soon as possible,” the court told the justice minister.

Levin, who has spearheaded the government’s ongoing legislative effort to weaken the judiciary and who has clashed with the High Court repeatedly, reacted angrily to the decision.

Levin said the court has “not stopped its tricks” intended “to thwart the appointment of a supervisor” and to allow police to obstruct the investigation.

“This is the look of a system that has lost all shame, that knows it stinks of corruption and double standards, and that is desperately clinging to its power and authority even at the cost of a complete loss of public trust in it and its leaders,” fumed the justice minister.

“Those responsible for the failure and cover-up will not be able to hide forever behind the robes of judges, and when the truth is revealed, they will not be able to say, ‘We did not know.’”

He accused the court of acting “at the expense of IDF soldiers and their right to justice.”

The Israel Democracy Guard organization, which petitioned the court against Kula’s original appointment, welcomed what it said was the court’s decision to “draw a line at the justice minister’s efforts to distort, to outsmart, and to change the court’s ruling, after the fact.”

The organization said it “expects the justice minister to now cease his efforts to intervene in the investigation of the military advocate general affair, and his efforts to artificially tar the attorney general with criminal allegations.”

That statement was a reference to a related controversy in the scandal over the leak. Levin had asserted that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and her senior staff had a conflict of interest because she had accepted the recommendation of a previous internal probe by the Military Advocate General’s office not to open a criminal investigation.

In November, the court ruled that under the highly irregular circumstances of the case, Levin was entitled to appoint an investigation supervisor from outside of the Attorney General’s Office and State Attorney’s Office, as he had sought.

But so far, he has not been able to find a candidate. After rejecting Kula, the court said Levin’s second choice, retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo, did not meet its criteria.