High Court weighs ministerial conflicts of interest in choosing criminal investigation oversight

BySARAH BEN-NUNNOVEMBER 15, 2026 14:09

The High Court of Justice convened all 11 Supreme Court justices on Sunday to examine whether the justice minister can choose who oversees a criminal investigation when conflicts of interest prevent senior law-enforcement officials from supervising it.

The hearing focused on how to resolve that problem without giving politicians influence over the investigation. It arose from last year’s ruling allowing Justice Minister Yariv Levin to appoint an outside supervisor for the investigation into former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi.

That investigation concerned the leak of footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility and suspected obstruction of efforts to establish who was responsible. The dispute over supervision arose because senior civilian law-enforcement officials had been involved in reviewing the earlier examination of the leak and could be called as witnesses.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit stressed that Sunday’s hearing would set rules for future cases, not decide who should supervise the Tomer-Yerushalmi investigation.

The court examined two questions: Does a conflict of interest involving senior prosecutors also prevent their colleagues from overseeing a case? And if supervision must move outside the prosecution, can the justice minister choose the replacement?

For prosecutors challenging the earlier ruling, allowing a politician to make that choice risks compromising the investigation’s independence. Several justices pressed the other side of the problem: whether officials could independently oversee an investigation involving their own superiors.

The law at the center of the dispute allows a minister, after consulting the civil service commissioner, to assign another civil servant to handle a matter that the official normally responsible is barred from handling. The dispute concerns how that provision, Section 23A(d) of the Civil Service (Appointments) Law, applies to criminal investigations.

In its November 16, 2025, judgment, the court ruled that Levin could use that power in the exceptional circumstances of the Tomer-Yerushalmi case. However, it rejected his choice of judicial complaints commissioner Asher Kula because the law governing Kula’s position prohibits him from taking on other work.

The court later rejected Levin’s appointment of retired judge Joseph Ben-Hamo because he did not meet the requirement that the supervisor be a senior civil servant. In December, Amit agreed to reconsider the broader legal rules before an expanded panel, while leaving the specific investigation outside the scope of that review.

Choice of supervisor should remain within legal system, attorney argues

At Sunday’s hearing, attorney Yuval Yoaz, representing the Israel Democracy Guard organization, argued that the choice of supervisor should remain within the legal system, even when conflicts of interest prevent its senior officials from handling the case.

The justices questioned whether that would provide sufficient distance from those being investigated. Could a subordinate independently choose who would oversee an investigation involving the attorney-general or other senior officials?

Yoaz argued that a deputy uninvolved in the matter could make the selection. Justice Yael Willner asked whether he would rule out a ministerial appointment under any circumstances. He said he would.

“Even the prosecution isn’t arguing that,” Willner responded.

Attorney Ran Rosenberg, representing the prosecution, argued for examining each official’s involvement before concluding that no one within the prosecution or government legal advisory system could supervise the investigation. A ministerial appointment should be a last resort, rather than a response to a blanket finding that the entire institution was barred from handling the case.

Rosenberg suggested that the ministry’s legal adviser could assess those conflicts. Amit emphasized that the minister could not himself decide who was barred from handling an investigation.

Justices question whether restrictions leave room for appointment power

Several justices questioned whether the proposed restrictions left enough room for the appointment power the Knesset had expressly granted. Justice Alex Stein stressed that the court had to interpret the law’s provisions. Deputy President Noam Sohlberg asked Yoaz where the law supported a restriction so sweeping that the minister could effectively never use that power.

Levin’s argument in the original proceedings was that choosing a professional supervisor was different from directing the investigation. He maintained that outside supervision was necessary to protect public confidence when senior law-enforcement officials were potential witnesses.

The justices also discussed whether a procedure could be established in advance for choosing a supervisor when conflicts arise. Justice Dafna Barak-Erez suggested developing such a framework, while Amit raised the possibility of selection by lottery.

Follow us on Google

---