In a dramatic ruling issued on September 8, 2026, a panel of Supreme Court justices led by President Isaac Amit, with the consent of Justices Alex Stein and Ruth Ronnen, determined that the government's decisions regarding the appointments of Dr. Yifat Ben-Hai Segev as Chair of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Council, and of Adv. Kinneret Barashi and Dr. Haim Shine as council members, must be annulled. The decision was unanimous and represents a significant blow to the government's decision-making process in this matter.
The ruling noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breached the conflict of interest agreement to which he is bound. The primary ground for disqualification regarding Dr. Ben-Hai Segev stemmed from her role as a witness in Netanyahu's criminal trial. President Amit emphasized in the judgment that the conflict of interest prohibition remains in effect even after the testimony has concluded, to prevent the appearance of providing a benefit to a witness by the Prime Minister. It was further determined that the government's attempt to rectify the flaw through a repeat vote held in Netanyahu's absence could not cure the profound legal defect in the original appointment process.
Beyond the conflict of interest issue, the Court also addressed the circumstances of the appointments of Adv. Kinneret Barashi and Dr. Haim Shine. According to the justices' determination, the government failed by not presenting the professional appointments committee with material information regarding sharp public statements the two had made against the media organizations they were intended to oversee in their new roles. The justices described the government's conduct as lacking a sufficient factual basis and ruled that the appointments could not be maintained.
In light of the totality of the flaws raised, the Supreme Court ordered the government to return the examination of all council members to a repeat discussion before the authorized committee, which will need to re-examine the suitability and propriety of the appointments in accordance with law and judicial precedent. The practical implication of the ruling for the Second Authority is the lack of a serving leadership in the near term, until proper legal examination processes are completed as ordered by the Court. This is a precedent that highlights the importance of a meticulous appointment process, even when involving sensitive roles subject to government oversight, as well as the Prime Minister's obligation to refrain from involvement in appointments concerning individuals with whom he has ties relevant to legal proceedings.