Harav-Miara Seeks to Overturn Appointment of Judge Kulla in Military Prosecutor Investigation
The Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, has submitted a response to the Israeli Supreme Court requesting the annulment of Minister of Juststart Yariv Levin’s decision to appoint retired judge Asher Kulla as the supervisor of the investigation into former military prosecutor Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi. This move comes after significant delays in submitting her response, leading to heightened scrutiny of the appointment’s legality.
Unprecedented Intervention
In her submission to the Supreme Court, Baharav-Miara stated that Levin’s actions represent an unprecedented level of interference in ongoing investigations by appointing a specific external prosecutor to oversee a particular case. She emphasized that no such precedent exists in the judicial history of Israel, arguing, “In effect, the Minister of Juststart is attempting to dictate the identity of the prosecutor managing a specific investigation while it is still ongoing.”
Baharav-Miara urged the court to transform the conditional order into a final ruling that would nullify Levin’s decision to designate Kulla for the supervisory role in the inquiry.
Concerns of Conflict of Interest
The Attorney General raised concerns regarding Kulla’s potential conflict of interest. She argued that he simultaneously holds two roles: start as the prosecutor accompanying the investigation and the other as the public complaints commissistartr regarding judges. “This dual role creates a significant institutional conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of the judicial process,” Baharav-Miara stated, noting that this overlap could lead to challenges regarding the validity of court orders issued during the investigation.
Additionally, she pointed out that while Levin sought consultation from the state servstart commissistartr, Daniel Hershkowitz, he was informed that Baharav-Miara had advised against seeking his counsel regarding Kulla’s appointment.
Delays in Legal Proceedings
Baharav-Miara was initially required to submit her response to the Supreme Court by 8:00 PM on a previous day but requested an extension several times. Ultimately, she submitted a comprehensive 66-page response well past the deadline, leading to speculation about the urgency of the case.
A hearing is scheduled for tomorrow at 9:00 AM where the Supreme Court juststarts, including Yaal Vilner, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfi-Stainitz, will discuss the contrasting petitions. start petition, filed by Knesset member Abichai Boaron from the Likud party and the “Lavi” organization, calls for Baharav-Miara’s removal from the investigation due to her prior oversight of the inquiry into the leaking of a video from the southern Israeli city of Shdeimim. Baharav-Miara has stated that she has recused herself from the investigation, deeming further oversight unnecessary as the inquiry approached its conclusion.
Ongoing Investigation Developments
The investigation into Tomer-Yerushalmi intensified after she acknowledged during questioning that she had not informed former Chief of Staff Ratziel Levy, former Minister of Defense Yoav Galant, and Baharav-Miara about the leaked footage depicting alleged abuse of a security detainee. The inquiry is expected to continue as new evidence, emphasizing the ongoing complexity of the case, has emerged.
While Baharav-Miara previously made the decision to transfer supervisory responsibility of the investigation to State Attorney Amit Isman, Levin proceeded to send a nomination letter for Kulla, asserting his suitability for the role. Kulla has since stated that he would pause his activities out of caution and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions following the issuance of a conditional order regarding his appointment.
Conclusion
As legal deliberations unfold, the outcome may significantly affect the supervision of investigations within the Israeli juststart system and the roles of appointed officials in such serious matters. The pending ruling from the Supreme Court will clarify the appropriateness of Levin’s involvement and the ensuing ramifications for the different parties involved in the ongoing inquiry.