In legal proceedings before the Supreme Court, Knesset Legal Adviser Sagit Afik has reiterated that her professional stance remains unchanged: the Knesset must act in accordance with the judgment regarding the election of the State Comptroller. As reported by Channel 13, Afik filed an official response with the HCJ, emphasizing the necessity of scheduling a re-vote as soon as possible.
The ruling in question, delivered unanimously by a five-judge panel led by Chief Justice Isaac Amit, determined that the previous election process for the State Comptroller was invalid. The judges criticized previous instructions given to Knesset members regarding the documentation of their votes, noting that such instructions could render the Basic Law provisions meaningless.
In her response to the court, Afik noted that significant changes have occurred in the composition of the house since the original ruling, including faction splits and legislative changes resulting from the resignation of members and the entry of successors. Alongside this, the Legal Adviser raised relevant considerations regarding Knesset work during recess and proximity to other political events; however, her substantive position remains a call for the re-vote as required.
The affair took an unusual turn when Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana requested private legal representation for the hearing, citing deep discrepancies in legal approach between him and the Knesset Legal Adviser. As published by Channel 13, the Speaker, alongside Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Coalition Chairman Ofir Katz, expressed opposition to the re-election in closed consultations.
The practical implications for the Knesset and the political echelon are complex: on one hand, there is a clear legal demand from the Supreme Court to conduct the process again, and on the other, there is open tension between the institution’s legal counsel and the elected political leadership. The disagreement regarding representation before the HCJ and calls from political figures not to comply with the ruling raise questions regarding how the court’s order will be implemented, highlighting the tension between branches of government regarding appointment procedures for key civil service roles.