The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, issued a dramatic ruling unanimously declaring the appointments of senior members of the Second Authority for Television and Radio invalid. The decision voids the appointments of Dr. Yifat Ben-Hai Segev as Chair of the Council, alongside Adv. Kinneret Barashi and Dr. Haim Shine as council members. The court's decision follows an investigative report by News 13 earlier this year, which highlighted the involvement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the appointment process.
According to the report, the Prime Minister participated in a cabinet meeting concerning Ben-Hai Segev's appointment, despite her being a prosecution witness in his ongoing criminal trial. This participation violates the conflict of interest agreement binding the Prime Minister, which prohibits him from engaging in matters concerning witnesses in his trial. During the High Court hearings, Justice Alex Stein addressed the complexity of the situation, emphasizing that as long as the criminal proceedings are ongoing, any contact with prosecution witnesses is prohibited.
Adv. Amit Hadad, representing Netanyahu, noted that this outcome might have been avoided had they waited for a formal legal opinion as required. Concurrently, the court discussed serious allegations against Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi regarding his conduct following the issuance of a freeze order on the appointments. The representative for the Attorney General presented information suggesting the minister exerted pressure on council members to resign in order to circumvent the judicial ruling.
The Attorney General’s representative described this conduct as a severe blow to the rule of law and respect for judicial decisions. The issue gained further significance following reports that Ben-Hai Segev had changed her testimony during Netanyahu's trial in a manner favorable to the defendant, a step that led the prosecution to request she be declared a hostile witness. Legal sources noted that these circumstances created a risk of contaminating the administrative process.
The High Court's decision puts an end to these controversial appointments and clarifies the limits allowed for public officials in clear conflicts of interest. The ruling serves as a legal reminder of the importance of adhering to proper administrative procedures and maintaining the necessary separation between personal interests and the duties of ministers and government members. The event has broad implications for how appointments are conducted in the Israeli public service and the commitment required from government levels to respect judicial decisions, even during times of political or security tension.