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 is responsible for hearing and treating complaints against judges. According to current law, the ombudsman, who traditionally is a retired judge, is elected the committee that is responsible for all judicial appointments, known as the Judicial Selections Committee.
The new proposal, authored by constitution committee chairman MK 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 Members of Knesset. According to the proposal, if there are two 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 Sompolinski, 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
A spokesperson for the Court Authority manager revealed during the meeting that Interim Chief Justice Yizhak Amit sent a letter to Levin on Sunday, requesting that the two resume periodical work meetings in order to advance a number of measures that were urgent. Levin ceased cooperating with the chief justice in June over petitions against Levin to force him to convene the Judicial Selections Committee in order to appoint a permanent chief justice.
Amit listed a number of important matters that required joint work between him and Levin, including forming a number of statutory committees, and appointing a new judicial system ombudsman. The current lack of cooperation “directly harms the judicial system’s proper functioning.”
According to a statement in response in the name of “minister Levin’s surrounding,” the “judge Amit can send the letter back to himself. Indeed the time has come to work without [judicial] directives and with agreements. There is no such thing as joint work when it is comfortable, and directives when that is comfortable.”
