High Court to review investigation into Sde Teiman leak, challenging Levin's authority

The High Court of Justice has decided to hold an additional hearing regarding the investigation into the Sde Teiman video leak, focusing on the scope of the Justice Minister's legal appointment powers and potential conflicts of interest. This case now centers around the limits of ministerial authority, particularly that of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday night, the court annulled Levin's second appointment of Josefh Ben-Hamo to lead the investigation. A few weeks prior, the court had imposed strict limits on who could oversee the investigation, and on Wednesday, it ruled that Levin exceeded these boundaries by ignoring explicit legal constraints.

The hearing will involve an expanded panel of 11 justices, tasked with reexamining the legal principles surrounding this case. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit stated that the focus would be on two key issues: the extent of the Justice Minister's powers in making appointments and whether a systemic conflict-of-interest rule applies when a minister becomes involved in a criminal investigation.

Amit emphasized that the upcoming hearing would focus on these broader legal principles, rather than the specifics of the Sde Teiman case. While additional hearings typically address live issues still in contention, the profound constitutional implications of ministerial authority in this case warranted an exception. The court also pointed out the relevance of its earlier ruling, which sharply limited Levin's role in criminal investigations involving the judicial system.

In Israel, criminal investigations are typically managed by the police, the prosecution, and, in more sensitive cases, the Attorney-General's office. Ministers are not authorized to appoint individuals to oversee active criminal investigations, as this could interfere with the independence of the investigative process and potentially allow for political influence. This "firewall" is essential to preserve the integrity of criminal inquiries, ensuring that the government cannot exert influence, especially when its own members may be implicated.

However, the Sde Teiman case is exceptional. The investigation concerns alleged misconduct by IDF reservists against a Palestinian detainee, which came to light through a leaked video. Levin argued that, due to the nature of the case, he had special authority as the Justice Minister to appoint an external figure to supervise the investigation. The Attorney-General's office strongly disagreed, asserting that the statute does not grant the minister such powers in criminal investigations. This clash over the interpretation of a rarely invoked statute made the court's intervention particularly significant.

In its previous rulings, the court found that Levin's interpretation of the statute was overly broad and outside its intended scope. The court ruled that the Justice Minister cannot appoint someone who has previously served as a judge or whose independence might reasonably be questioned. Since Ben-Hamo met both of these disqualifying criteria, his appointment was deemed unlawful.

The upcoming hearing will not revisit the specific facts of the case, but will instead focus on establishing a clear rule for similar disputes in the future. The court will determine the extent of the Justice Minister's role when criminal investigations involve judicial or quasi-judicial figures. Additionally, the court will address whether a minister who is personally found to have a conflict of interest can still exercise procedural rights, such as requesting a rehearing, without being excluded from the legal process.

Amit also clarified that procedural rights cannot be stripped from a minister solely because of a conflict of interest. He rejected Levins argument that the attorney-general's petition for a rehearing should be dismissed based on this conflict. Denying procedural rights, Amit wrote, would mean that any party found to have a conflict of interest would automatically lose access to legal avenues designed to challenge such determinations.

Written arguments from the petitioners are due by January 4, with Levins response due a month later. The expanded panel, composed of the entire top echelon of the Supreme Court, is set to hear the case in the first half of 2026. This development further intensifies the ongoing conflict between Levin and the judicial system, bringing to the forefront not just the fate of the Sde Teiman investigation, but the broader issue of ministerial involvement in criminal investigations.

Author: Riley Thompson