The Knesset Constitution Committee debated on Monday morning a controversial bill proposal that would alter the election method of the position of ombudsman of the judicial system.
The judicial system currently lacks an ombudsman, who would be responsible for hearing and treating complaints against judges.
According to current law, the ombudsman must be a judge who is eligible to be appointed to the High Court of Justice and must be elected by the committee that is responsible for all judicial appointments, the Judicial Selections Committee.
The new proposal, authored by Constitution Committee chairman Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party), is to shift the election process to the Knesset.
According to the proposal, the Knesset will elect the ombudsman with a secret vote, and candidates can be proposed either by the justice minister or by any group of 10 MKs. According to the proposal, if there are two or more candidates, one must receive 70 votes in order to receive the position.
Rothman and other supporters of the bill have argued that there is an inherent conflict of interest in the current system, as there are three judges on the judicial selections committee, and they are therefore tasked with appointing the person who will then investigate complaints against them.
However, members of the opposition and Deputy Attorney-General Avital Sompolinsky argued that the bill was flawed since it created an opening for political influence on judges.
It also lowers the necessary criteria to fulfill the position, as the ombudsman does not need to be a judge, and it does not include a mechanism for what happens if a candidate does not receive 70 votes.
Judicial matters
The committee meeting came as Justice Minister Yariv Levin, head of the Judicial Selection Committee, continues to refrain from electing a new permanent High Court Chief Justice despite the High Court directing him to do so.
The committee is likely to elect interim Chief Justice Isaac Amit to the position, contrary to Levin’s desire to elect Judge Yosef Elron.
Sompolinsky argued during the committee meeting on Monday that the Judicial Selection Committee should appoint a new ombudsman irrespective of the tension over the appointment of a permanent chief justice.
Democrats MK Gilad Kariv followed Sompolinsky by proposing that the committee put out a joint call for Levin to attempt to work with Amit and to appoint a new ombudsman.
Rothman refused to address the two issues separately, saying that he would be willing to put out a call for Levin and Amit to cooperate and reach agreements on all issues – including the Chief Justice vote.
A spokesperson for the Judicial Authority manager revealed during the meeting that Amit had sent a letter to Levin on Sunday requesting that the two resume periodical work meetings in order to advance a number of urgent measures.
Levin ceased cooperating with the chief justice in June over the petitions to force him to appoint a permanent chief justice.
Amit listed several important matters that required joint work between him and Levin, including forming several statutory committees and appointing the new judicial system ombudsman. The current lack of cooperation, Amit wrote, “directly harms the judicial system’s proper functioning.”
Levin’s office fired back, “Judge Amit can send the letter back to himself. Indeed, the time has come to work, but without [judicial] directives and [instead] with agreements. There is no such thing as [wanting] joint work when it is convenient and directives when that is convenient.”