Constitution Committee begins debates on bill associated with judicial reform

The Knesset Constitution Committee held a heated debate on Wednesday over a contested bill proposal that gives the justice minister the authority to set the amount of the annual membership fee for the Israel Bar Association, instead of the IBA’s national council, which currently enjoys that authority.

The bill’s author, Likud MK Hanoch Milwidsky, along with committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman (Likud), argued that the IBA should not have the power to set a fee that lawyers were forced to pay to practice their profession.

Milwidsky, Rothman, and other coalition MKs argued that the bill increased the freedom of occupation for lawyers since it would lower membership fees. The MKs also argued that the IBA should not use the funds for what the MKs claimed were political purposes, such as joining protests against the government’s 2023 judicial reforms.

However, the Bar Association’s chairman, attorney Amit Becher, and a number of opposition MKs argued that the bill’s real purpose was to serve as a threat against the IBA, to attempt to force the IBA’s two members in the Judicial Selection Committee to support Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s candidate for the next Supreme Court chief justice.

“The bill proposal is not intended to deal with lawyers’ welfare or the size of membership fees, but part of a drive led by Justice Minister Yariv Levin to harm the independence of the judicial system, and weaken the Bar Association and harm its independence, and to terrorize the members of the IBA in the Judicial Selection Committee so that they vote against [liberal judge and interim Chief Justice Yitzhak] Amit. Representatives of the justice minister threatened that if the IBA’s representatives vote for Amit, they will pass a law to harm the IBA’s budget,” Becher said.

Heated exchanges

During the meeting, Milwidsky and Becher engaged in a number of heated exchanges, with Becher accusing Milwidsky of being a liar, and Milwidsky responding that Becher was a “lowly lobbyist.” Rothman removed Becher from the debate three times.

The makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee has been a major bone of contention between the government the opposition and the judicial system, and one of the central bills in the judicial reforms was to alter its makeup such that the government could have indirect control over judicial appointments.

Another bone of contention is the mechanism for appointing the chief justice. Traditionally, the position is filled by the longest-serving member of the bench, who is currently Amit. Levin, however, prefers the conservative justice Yosef Elron and has argued that the “seniority” method is not statutory and should not always apply.

The chief justice vote requires a simple majority within the nine-member selection. The committee includes three justices and two members of the IBA, and, along with the opposition representative MK Karine Elharrar (Yesh Atid), is expected to appoint Amit. However, an IBA vote alongside the coalition’s three representatives would give Levin a majority.

Levin has therefore refrained from convening the committee to appoint the next permanent chief justice or to fill the three current vacancies on the bench. The High Court ruled in September that Levin did not have the authority to avoid electing a chief justice, and gave him 14 days to announce the candidates and an additional 45 days to convene the committee. A meeting is scheduled for November 28.

Levin announced on November 5 that the committee would convene on November 28, but it is not clear if a vote to appoint the chief justice will be held.