Israel’s Supreme Court held a dramatic hearing on Tuesday, beginning at 10 a.m., on Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara’s attempt to oversee the explosive Sdei Teiman affair, which has shaken up Israel in recent weeks.

The panel, consisting of three justices—Yael Willner, Gila Canfy-Steinitz, and Alex Stein—will decide who will lead the investigation into the leak: State Attorney Amit Isman, who reports to the Attorney General and was appointed by her; retired judge Asher Kula, who was appointed to head the case by Justice Minister Yariv Levin; or an external figure who is independent of both the attorney general and the justice minister.

The hearing opened with a direct confrontation between the justices and the representative of the Attorney-General, Attorney Ran Rosenberg. The judges harshly criticized Baharav-Miara’s position, expressing skepticism at her arguments and expressing astonishment at issues she failed to address.

Rosenberg argued that Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s appointment of retired judge Asher Kula was “an unprecedented decision.” However, Justice Yael Willner responded that the entire situation is unprecedented, and his argument did not address that point. She also criticized the logic of allowing an attorney general who is herself in a conflict of interest to decide who should replace her in leading the investigation.

When asked whether a replacement for the attorney general is needed to oversee the investigation, Rosenberg replied, “No.” Justice Canfy-Steinitz responded with astonishment: “In the most sensitive investigation in the history of the state, no need? And if it is decided to file an indictment, there’s still no need?”

Justices Willner and Canfy-Steinitz repeatedly pressed Rosenberg on who has the authority to appoint an external figure when both the Attorney-General and the State Attorney may be in a conflict of interest. They noted that State Attorney Amit Isman himself participated in early internal discussions about the leak—a fact that may also disqualify him from overseeing the investigation.

 Both judges continued to challenge Rosenberg, barely allowing him to finish a sentence: “Sir, you’re going in circles and not answering who appoints the oversight figure.”

Rosenberg eventually responded, “I’ll tell you that it’s clear that a ministerial level does not appoint.” Justice Willner: “But I asked who does appoint.”

He struggled to answer the justices’ questions directly, and the hearing continued as Justice Yael Willner made no effort to hide her displeasure with Rosenberg’s vague answers: “You are going in circles; you are not answering our question. What is your answer? Who transfers the oversight of the investigation, and who is overseeing the investigation?” Rosenberg replied that at this stage, the investigation is being overseen by the head of the Cyber Department at the State Attorney’s Office, Adv. Assaf Shavit, and if needed, also the State Attorney.

The representative for Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Adv. Tzion Amir said during the hearing that the authority to appoint a replacement for the Attorney-General has been exercised by many justice ministers in the past. Justice Yael Willner challenged him: “When? I have not found even one such case.”

Rosenberg claimed that the Justice Minister had not consulted with the Justice Ministry’s legal adviser and had acted on his own. Justice Canfy-Steinitz retorted, “The problem is that everything you accuse him of—you did yourselves.”

Willner focused on Kula’s eligibility to oversee the investigation, given his position as the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges. “We are not talking about Judge Kula personally,” she clarified, “but about his position as ombudsman and the question of whether he may accompany the investigation in light of Article 11, which forbids him from taking on additional duties. What is your answer?”

Adv. Amir did not provide a direct answer, saying, “There have been precedents in the past.” Justice Willner replied sharply, “The mere fact that there were precedents does not mean they were proper.”

After a recess of about 40 minutes, Justice Willner presented a judicial compromise proposal and urged the parties to reach an agreement to avoid a court ruling.

She began by saying that “this is a very difficult case legally. The questions are complicated, difficult, and complex. This is a dramatic and exceptional public affair. Each of the parties, in our view, faces legal difficulties.”

“There is a difficulty in appointing Kula, since there is an explicit statutory provision preventing him from doing so. There is a difficulty with the very intervention of the Justice Minister—in a criminal investigation, it is clear why this is problematic. There is also a difficulty with the Attorney-General’s position. It is problematic for her to appoint the person who replaces her in the investigation. That is a conflict of interest—she has an interest in who will be appointed to accompany the investigation.”

She added that the Supreme Court could determine who will oversee the case, but she prefers that the parties themselves reach a compromise and appoint a third party.

“I’m appealing to you—this is the time to reach an agreement rather than a judicial decision,” Willner said. “We are practically begging, in the public interest, for you to reach an agreement.”

Willner presented three possible alternatives: a senior district court judge who specializes in criminal law, a retired Supreme Court justice, or a senior investigative figure from the Competition Authority or the Securities Authority.

 “We are pleading, from a public standpoint, that you reach an agreement,” Willner said. “Discuss as long as you want—we’ll wait for you here. At 5 p.m., 6, or until 7 or later. Just reach an agreement.”

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)