In a further move highlighting the legal and political controversy surrounding the appointment of the State Comptroller, Knesset Legal Advisor Adv. Sagit Afek submitted an official response to the Supreme Court this morning. Regarding the petition concerning convening the plenum for a new vote, Adv. Afek reiterated her consistent legal position that the Knesset must act without delay to implement the High Court’s ruling, which invalidated the previous vote. Afek's position comes amidst significant disagreements between the professional echelon and the political leadership of the Knesset.
As reported by Channel 13, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana expressed opposition to the Legal Advisor's position and requested private legal representation in the case, citing differences in legal interpretation regarding the obligation to comply with court directives. In her detailed response to the court, Adv. Afek pointed to practical challenges that have emerged due to the time elapsed since the original ruling. Among other things, she noted that considerations such as the parliamentary recess, the proximity to an election period, and changes in the plenum's composition since the voided vote must be taken into account. These changes include shifts in parliamentary factions, the resignation of Knesset members, and the entry of new members who did not participate in the original process.
It should be recalled that the ruling in question, delivered unanimously by five Supreme Court justices headed by President Yitzhak Amit, ordered a revote after finding flaws in the previous process. Justice Noam Sohlberg criticized the Speaker's directive allowing members to document their votes, noting that it could render constitutional provisions a dead letter. Meanwhile, Channel 13 reported that senior political figures, including Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Coalition Chairman Ofir Katz, expressed reservations about implementing the ruling in internal forums. This matter has implications for the relations between Israel’s branches of government, raising fundamental questions regarding the commitment of state authorities to court rulings, even when they concern the management of internal legislative procedures. The legal proceedings are expected to continue in the Supreme Court, which will have to determine the implementation of the ruling under the new political circumstances.