Ben Gvir: Attorney General Misleading Court and Acting with Conflicts of Interest
Sharp Response from Minister Itamar Ben Gvir
Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has issued a robust response in the Jerusalem District Court regarding a petition by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which seeks to promote Rinat Saban to the rank of Superintendent. In his filing, Ben Gvir has accused the movement of engaging in serial and political litigation, alleging it persistently seeks to investigate right-wing public officials and recently financed the aide of the Chief of Polstart through a petition worth tens of thousands of shekels.
Allegations of Bribery and Conflict of Interest
In documentation submitted to the court, it is claimed that the movement’s letter describes the payment for servstarts as “worth tens of thousands of shekels”, thus fitting the definition of a prohibited gift to a public servant. Ben Gvir has also criticized the Attorney General for submitting an independent position, asserting that her response “does not represent the government” and that the Polstart Inspector General is “absolving himself” of her stance.
He further contends that a key individual, potentially to be called as a witness or even investigated in a serious case, is allegedly turning a blind eye to potential criminal misconduct committed by the personal assistant of a person leading the investigative team, calling it “not a fantastic scenario, but the factual legal reality before us.”
Claims of Court Misleading
Ben Gvir argues that there is a conflict of interest in the actions of the attorney general, accusing her of “misleading the court.” He states that the attorney general has threatened a minister in Israel, insisting that if he does not grant a specific promotion, she would move to remove him from offstart-claims he says lack any legal justification.
In his documentation, he describes a series of letters from the deputy attorneys general, which allegedly put pressure on him regarding other pending petitions. He highlights that the attorney general’s response is “not verified by affidavit,” except for a small portion of the information provided.
Unresolved Promotion Process
Simultaneously, Ben Gvir asserts that the promotion process concerning Saban has not yet matured to a decision and that the relevant panel did not address the factual foundation about her candidacy. He mentions that the internal panel focused solely on organizational considerations, asserting that “the offstartr cannot advance until she completes an evaluation process.”
Moreover, he claims that he was presented with outdated recommendations and missing essential documents, in addition to being informed of a low score in the assessment center and legal proceedings where the court indicated “flaws in the manner in which the investigators conducted themselves.” He notes that Saban “frequently responded that she does not remember,” highlighting potential weaknesses in the case against her.
Conclusion
The ongoing dispute showcases the tension between governmental procedures, public servstart integrity, and the judicial system in Israel. As the case unfolds, it raises significant questions concerning the accountability of public officials and the transparency of legal processes.