Rothman pushes forward with bill to change election process of justice system watchdog

The Knesset Constitution Committee led by MK Simcha Rothman approved for first reading on Sunday a controversial bill to give the Knesset the ability to appoint the judicial system watchdog, who has the authority to hear complaints against judges and even to recommend removing them from their position.

The current law says that the position is a joint appointment by the Supreme Court Chief Justice and the Justice Minister, and is approved by the judicial selection committee. The current law requires that the watchdog have a relevant background and deep familiarity with the court system, and, although not required by law, all former watchdogs have been retired high-court justices. The watchdog oversees all judges with statutory powers, including criminal courts, transportation courts, family courts, and also judges in religious courts.

The former watchdog, former high court judge Uri Shoham, finished his tenure in May, and Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Interim Chief Justice Uzi Fogelman have been unable to reach an agreement as to who will be appointed the next watchdog. The bill’s purpose, according to Rothman, is to solve the stalemate.

The bill proposal is that the justice minister or any group of 10 Knesset members may put forward a candidate. The Knesset then must approve a candidate with at least 70 MKs. The bill does not require that the watchdog have any professional requirements.

Rothman argued that the Knesset, as the representative of the people, should have the prerogative to elect the watchdog. In addition, Rothman argued that the high court chief justice should not be involved in the election process, since he himself will face oversight by the watchdog.

However, the bill’s opponents, including members of the opposition, the attorney general’s office, the legal adviser of Rothman’s own committee, and civil organizations such as the Israel Democracy Institute, pointed out a number of what they claimed were problems with the bill: First, the bill did not solve the problem it set out to solve, since it did not explain what would happen if 70 MKs could not agree on a candidate; second, there were no professional requirements, such that the appointment could be someone who does not have the appropriate qualifications; third, the bill would make the ombudsman a political appointment that could have a chilling effect on judges who do not want to be targeted by him for political reasons.

Opponents to the bill 

Furthermore, a number of opponents to the bill argued that it served de facto as a continuation of the controversial 2023 judicial reforms, which caused widespread social turmoil since it would lead to the weakening of the judicial system. National Unity MK Orit Farkash-Hacohen, for example, pointed out that many of the judicial reform bills had shared characteristics – they sometimes came to solve specific problems, such as the political status of Shas chairman MK Arye Deri or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; they often were a “changing of the rules during the game,” and did not say that they would only apply in the future; that they sometimes did not solve the problems they set out to fix; and that they faced opposition from nearly every professional who weighed in on the issue.