MKs: Rothman ‘trampling’ protocol on judicial reform
Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Chairman MK Simcha Rothman was “trampling” protocol by debating laws connected to the controversial proposed judicial reform even before receiving a legal opinion from the committee’s own legal adviser, opposition members on the committee said at a press conference on Monday.
A boycott of the committee began on Sunday, and will continue until the adviser gives his opinion regarding the proposed laws, the opposition MKs said.
The MKs are Gilad Kariv (Labor), Orit Farkash-Hacohen (National Unity), Yoav Segalovitz (Yesh Atid), Karin Elharrar (Yesh Atid) and Aida Touma-Sliman (HadashTa’al).
The committee debated a provision in the law last week that would limit the authority of the attorney-general and the government ministries’ legal advisers. However, Rothman announced last week that this week’s debates would focus on a different law that includes other parts of the reform – amendments to the Basic Law: The Judiciary pertaining to the Judicial Appointments Committee, the Reasonableness Clause and the Override Clause.
Rothman put out a draft of these amendments last Tuesday at 11 p.m., but this did not give the committee’s legal adviser, Gur Bligh, time to write an opinion on it. Laws are usually brought forward along with the legal adviser’s opinion. The opposition therefore argued that Rothman was intentionally holding hollow discussions as a facade suggesting in-depth debates were
taking place.
The opposition MKs refused to be “props in a play,” they said at Monday’s press conference, adding that they would “stand like a fortified wall against the attempts to launch a judicial coup d’etat.”
Elharrar said that, “in committee chairman Rothman and Justice Minister [Yariv] Levin’s amok, they forgot to behave according to the rules.”
Kariv added that if Rothman ends up “obliging” to the opposition MKs’ demand to speed up the legal opinion’s insertion into the law proposal, it would only be because of the boycott.
Rothman on Sunday belittled the MKs who were not present.
“I understand their hearts,” he said. “They needed a few days off and we are patiently waiting for them. Maybe it’s because they shouted in the streets that they are not able to speak; they don’t have the strength to shout where the decisions are made.”
Rothman’s proposal last week included a number of changes relative to an earlier proposal from Levin. The opposition MKs argued that
the reason Rothman put out the new draft was that the coalition was unwilling to wait for Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara to write her opinion on Levin’s law. Laws proposed by ministers include an opinion by the A-G, and Baharav-Miara said it would take her office a number of weeks to write its opinion. Levin accused her of intentionally delaying the legislation.
The opposition MKs argued that the coalition being not willing to wait also served as proof that they wanted to rush the reform and avoid a debate. Moreover, the fact that Rothman’s proposition differed from Levin’s showed that the coalition was acting so hastily that it had not even worked out its own proposal.
Within the committee room, the legal adviser to the court system, Barak Lazer, argued that the reforms were more fitted to pass within the framework of a new basic law on legislation, and not Basic Law: The Judiciary, which deals with the courts and the judicial system. Lazer suggested that the reason the coalition was not choosing this option was that it would take more time.
Rothman disagreed, arguing that the reform was indeed appropriate for the Basic Law: The Judiciary, since it deals with the limits of the judicial system’s power vis-à-vis the Knesset.
Lazer also criticized the proposal to change the Judicial Appointments Committee so that the coalition would have a majority. He argued that the current system was developed over 70 years and did not need fixing.