The systemic judicial overhaul is not coming to a halt. On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, two bills designed to dismantle the independence of the judiciary will be advanced.
One legislative proposal seeks to establish a new structure for the Judicial Selection Committee in which only politicians and their political operatives will have the exclusive authority to appoint judges. This arrangement will lead to the politicization of adjudication at every judicial level in Israel, resulting in the appointment of judges based not on their professional expertise but on political affiliations, thereby undermining judicial independence. The appointments will be made on the basis of political loyalty, and there is a genuine concern that decisions rendered by judges in lower courts will be influenced by a desire to please the politically composed committee for career advancement. Political polarization will be reflected in the composition of the courts, with judges identified as “judges on behalf of” one political camp or another, thus damaging both the quality of adjudication and public confidence. The proposed law is expected to upend the longstanding tradition of appointing judges by broad consensus. In effect, it establishes a mechanism that will lead to the appointment of judges who are not only politically affiliated but may even be extremists. The result—borne by the public at large—could be the elimination of judicial oversight and severe harm to the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
The second legislative proposal concerns the method for appointing the Ombudsperson for Public Complaints regarding judges. The Ombudsperson—charged with reviewing judicial conduct and vested with disciplinary powers—is an essential figure in overseeing the judicial system. Among other powers, the Ombudsperson may recommend to the Judicial Selection Committee that a judge’s tenure be terminated or advise the relevant Minister or the President of the pertinent court to submit a proposal to the Judicial Selection Committee for ending a judge’s tenure. This role, therefore, carries an inherent risk to judicial independence, and any change in the method of selecting the Ombudsperson must be undertaken with utmost caution, broad consensus, and on substantive grounds. The new proposal defines a dedicated committee for selecting the Ombudsperson, which is fundamentally controlled by the current coalition with respect to appointments, while simultaneously diminishing the role of the judiciary and legal professionals as significant contributors in the selection process. This new arrangement is designed to circumvent the existing requirement that the appointment of the Ombudsperson be made by consensus between the Minister of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, thereby enabling the Minister to appoint an Ombudsperson who may be politically biased and intended to undermine judicial independence. The possibility of selecting a political Ombudsperson is a real threat to the independence of the judicial system.
Not only is the substance of this legislation unacceptable, but so too are the timing and manner in which it is being pursued. First, the coalition insists on advancing highly contentious laws despite—and indeed seemingly exploiting—the public emotional turmoil generated by the return of the hostages. This is not the time for sweeping constitutional amendments. There is no justification for a rushed debate that disregards the positions of all professional stakeholders, including the legal advisory bodies of the Knesset and the government. Second, to exacerbate the situation even further, these two laws, which alter fundamental constitutional arrangements, are intended to be enacted solely through coalition votes, and in order to enable the current minister to impose the appointment of the Ombudsperson and continue to obstruct the selection of Supreme Court justices - actions whose sole purpose is the elimination of judicial review. Constitutional changes must be made only with cross-partisan consensus, as has traditionally been the practice in the Knesset.
In Israel, the courts play a crucial role in safeguarding the democratic character of the state. The enactment of either of these two laws will fundamentally alter the nature of the regime in Israel. We must oppose these legislative proposals and fight them resolutely. These proposals are inconsistent with the constitutional identity of the State of Israel.
Comentarios