The latest chapter in the saga of government vs. judiciary in Israel began when Justice Minister Yariv Levin in late July announced the establishment of a committee to investigate the conduct of the police, the prosecutor’s office, and the supervisory law and order systems, most prominently the attorney general’s office, following the NSO affair (Justice Minister to Investigate Police Alleged Rampant Misconduct Using Pegasus Spyware).
“The citizens of Israel are entitled to privacy and any investigative procedure being conducted in accordance to the law, concerning the rights of the interrogated, witnesses, and everyone concerned,” Levin said, adding, “The accelerating technological developments require the provision of appropriate technological tools to the enforcement authorities to fight crime and corruption.” However, “the use of these tools must be controlled and regulated with deep supervision, and the prosecution of those who use and misuse these tools illegally.”
On Tuesday, AG Gali Baharav-Miara sent a letter to Minister Levin, suggesting he does not have the authority to grant the committee power to examine pending criminal cases.
She stated: “Granting the authority to the committee to investigate these procedures undermines the fundamental principles of the independence of the law enforcement system.”
Did I mention that the AG would be one of the people the committee was empowered to investigate?
Minister Levin replied at once that he “will act without delay to approve the establishment of the committee of inquiry.”
Here’s his letter, I took the liberty to translate a few points:
1. I completely reject everything you say in your letter.
2. I must wonder tremendously at your very interference in this matter, seeing as the committee of inquiry is authorized according to its proposed writ of appointment, among other things, to examine the manner of supervision and the role of the Attorney General’s office in the “Pegasus affair.” The attempt of an entity and its head to dictate the boundaries of the inquiry which has to do with an affair in which it is involved and whose conduct would be examined as part of the inquiry, is inconceivable.
3. Under these circumstances, the conflict of interests of the AG is crying to high heaven. The attempt to torpedo the working of the committee, and limit it in a way that would prevent it from discovering the truth, is enraging and serious, especially when it is done by someone who was appointed to enforce the law. And this is especially serious since it has to do with an issue that’s important beyond compare for the propriety of the rule of law, human rights, and proper administration.
Levin concludes: “I therefore wish to inform you that I intend to act without delay to immediately approve the establishment of the committee, in a manner that will secure its ability to act and discover the truth.
All I can say is, OMG, Yariv Levin, where have you been all these months?
