The Judicial Ombudsman’s Office (Commission for Public Complaints Against Judges) on Wednesday published a summary of the Ombudsman’s decision, Judge Asher Kula, regarding the complaints filed against Supreme Court Justice Yitzchak Amit.

Kula ruled that the President of the Supreme Court, Yitzchak Amit, acted in a conflict of interest when he sat in judgment on a petition concerning the cancellation of the “Directors’ Selection Committee” at a time when his brother had a direct interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

This is the most serious finding among a series of complaints examined by Kula against Justice Amit, some of which were submitted even before his appointment as President of the Supreme Court. Kula ruled that in this case Amit should have refrained from hearing the petition due to the family connection and the inherent concern of a conflict of interest.

Kula’s decision was issued following a comprehensive inquiry that included summoning witnesses, receiving written responses, and even a direct meeting with Amit himself.

The complaints—submitted mainly by the Lavi organization at the time that the Judicial Selection Committee convened to discuss Justice Amit’s candidacy for the position of President of the Supreme Court—included allegations concerning several different matters in which the complainants claimed improprieties in his conduct. At the time, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara bullied the judicial system into electing him by prohibiting the Judicial Selection Committee from investigating the allegations against him.

The complaint alleging a conflict of interest because the president ruled on matters involving the Tel Aviv Municipality was dismissed, but Kula noted, “Full disclosure would have prevented the complaint.”

With respect to the “Akro Real Estate” affair, although the judge was not aware of the connection between the companies involved, Kula remarked that the problem could have been avoided had he properly completed his list of recusals.

Kula concluded his decision by stating, “It would be beneficial if, in the current reality, we all internalized the need to strengthen public trust in the judicial system, even if this requires extra consideration of public perception and clarity of conscience.”

Judge Amit, in his response, sought to downplay the severity of the findings: “The Ombudsman dismissed all the complaints submitted. Out of dozens of complaints, only one was found to be justified. The president respects the Ombudsman’s determination and will take the comments to heart.”

Justice Minister Yariv Levin responded, “It’s unfathomable that a judge sits on the Supreme Court after the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges has determined that a complaint against him—according to which he acted in a conflict of interest—is justified. The damage incurred to the judicial system is already unprecedented. Justice Yitzhak Amit must resign immediately.”

Minister Betzalel Smotrich said, “Yitzchak Amit is trampling the remaining shreds of public trust in the court.”

Minister Shlomo Karhi said, “The Supreme Court has crossed every red line. When Justice Amit sits in judgment while in a conflict of interest, this is no longer a ‘legal worldview’ but governmental corruption. Amit, who over and over protects the dismissed Attorney General and his colleagues in the system, must go home immediately and face investigation for his role in the severe harm to Israeli democracy.”

The Lavi organization stated, “Justice Yitzhak Amit repeatedly allows himself to deal with matters in which he is in a conflict of interest—such as the Directors’ Selection affair, in which Kula explicitly ruled that our complaint was justified—and in additional cases in which he commented on Amit’s conduct. Public officials would have been put on trial for far less, and we demand equal standards with respect to Justice Amit.”

Political commentator Ariel Kahana said: “An astonishing response by the ‘President of the Supreme Court’ to the findings against him: ‘Out of dozens of complaints, only one was found justified.’ Do you understand?!

P R E S I D E N T
O F T H E
S U P R E M E
C O U R T
says that
‘O N L Y O N E C O M P L A I N T’
was correct.

“As if to say, ‘I didn’t steal 100 cars, only one—what’s the big deal? I didn’t murder 100 people, only one—so what?’ When in truth the Ombudsman was very lenient with his colleague Amit…

“Politicians with so many cases of conflicts of interest would be pilloried by the very same judicial system that Yitzhak Amit now heads.”

(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)