Supreme Court showdown: Judges question timing of law preventing PM’s incapacity

The Supreme Court heard a petition on Thursday against a law passed earlier this year which effectively prevents a sitting prime minister from being declared unfit for office. 

The law that was passed in March, which is an amendment to an already existing Basic Law, will only make it possible to declare a prime minister unfit for office for the following two reasons; if they declare themselves physically or mentally unfit serve, or if three-quarters of the cabinet ministers declare them unfit due to health concerns.

11 Supreme Court judges were considering whether the implementation of the law should be delayed to prevent a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for corruption.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin raged against court hearing, claiming it’s “effectively a hearing on nullifying election results.”

“Postponing the application of the incapacitation law means that an official, as high ranking as he may be, will have authority he was never given and will participate in the absurd debate on declaring the prime minister unfit for office in stark contrast to election results,” he said.

Inside the courtroom, several judges questioned the timing of the law and asked the Knesset Attorney Michael Rabello why the law can’t be postponed to avoid a clear conflict of interest regarding Netanyahu and his trial.

“How does delaying the implementation of the recusal law cancel the elections?” Chief Justice Esther Hayut asked.

Rabello dismissed this option outright, claiming that “postponing the law’s enactment is akin to canceling it as a Basic Law.”

“The appellants seek to disqualify Prime Minister Netanyahu in order to put an end to right-wing rule. They lost in the ballot box, and are now trying to nullify the election results. This means that Israel will no longer be a democracy,” Rabello added.

Meanwhile, Knesset Attorney Yitzhak Bart admitted that one of the motives for passing the law was “personal.”

Justice Ofer Grosskopf said that”the law’s content creates difficulty. It seems that from the lawmakers point of view, its purpose was to make it very difficult for the Prime Minister to be incapacitated.”

Justice Anat Baron meanwhile pointed to remarks made by Netanyahu after the law was passed, where he said: “Until today my hands were tied. So tonight I announce to you, no more,” referring to a deal he made with the court that until then had prevented him from dealing with changes to the judicial system which would constitute a conflict of interest.