Background
The case arose from the investigation into the leak of security-camera footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility. The footage concerned alleged abuse of a Palestinian detainee by military reservists and was broadcast before charges were filed. In October 2025, the then Military Advocate General admitted that she had authorized its release to the media. Police subsequently investigated the leak and related conduct, taking dozens of statements, conducting searches and confrontations, and investigating several suspects. Police reported finding an evidentiary basis concerning persons within the Military Advocate General’s Corps, but none implicating officials outside that circle.
Earlier Supreme Court rulings had held that, because senior officials in the Attorney General’s office and State Attorney’s Office might be called as witnesses, the Minister of Justice could exceptionally appoint an outside official to exercise the Attorney General’s supervisory powers, subject to strict safeguards against political interference. Two proposed appointments were invalidated, and the minister ultimately appointed no replacement. In March 2026, after receiving updated information from police, the Justice Ministry’s legal adviser concluded that the Attorney General remained disqualified but State Attorney Amit Aisman was no longer conflicted because he had not participated in relevant events and had not been called as a witness. The investigative materials were then transferred to him, and he appointed a prosecutorial team to review the file and recommend any necessary supplemental investigation.
The petitioners sought to prevent the State Attorney and the prosecution service from handling the matter, compel the minister to appoint an outside supervisor, and direct police to investigate additional alleged suspects and avenues of supposed concealment. The Minister of Justice supported much of that position. The State respondents maintained that the updated conflict determination rested on an adequate factual record and that no basis existed for judicial intervention.
The Court’s Holding
By a 2–1 majority, the Court dismissed the petition in full. President Isaac Amit, joined by Justice Khaled Kabub, held that the earlier rulings created a temporary, fact-dependent disqualification; they did not make appointment of an outside supervisor an indispensable condition for completing the investigation or revisiting the State Attorney’s status. Once the Justice Ministry’s legal adviser validly determined that the State Attorney was no longer conflicted, the minister’s standing 2023 designation—transferring the Attorney General’s criminal-law functions to the State Attorney whenever she is disqualified—again operated automatically. No new ministerial appointment was required.
The majority found the updated opinion adequately reasoned and supported by a substantially fuller factual record than the initial conflict assessment, including information developed through extensive police work and reviewed by senior police officials. A theoretical possibility that later evidence might implicate the State Attorney did not justify continuing his disqualification. Professional relationships with the Attorney General or other prosecution officials likewise did not, without more, establish a conflict. The Court also emphasized that allowing the minister’s failure to appoint a supervisor to invalidate the investigation would give a political official leverage to delay or shape a criminal investigation. The petitioners’ prolonged failure to challenge the absence of a supervisor also supported dismissal on grounds of delay, while the minister could not rely on consequences arising from his own inaction.
The Court unanimously rejected the request to dictate additional investigative steps. Courts ordinarily do not act as investigators or direct police toward particular suspects or theories, especially where the challenged decisions involve professional evaluation of evidence. The petitioners’ assertions did not meet the high threshold for intervention. Justice David Mintz dissented as to the first two claims: he would have ordered the minister to explain why he had not appointed an independent supervisor, reasoning that the earlier judgment made such supervision essential before the State Attorney’s disqualification could properly be reconsidered. He agreed that the Court should not direct the police investigation.
Key Takeaways
- A conflict-of-interest disqualification during a criminal investigation is temporary and may be reassessed as the factual record develops; speculative future evidence does not preserve it indefinitely.
- The majority held that the minister’s failure to appoint an outside supervisor could not give the minister continuing leverage over the investigation or prevent the State Attorney from assuming authority once his disqualification was removed.
- Israeli courts will rarely direct specific police investigative steps, particularly when senior law-enforcement officials have conducted an extensive inquiry and the challenge rests on speculation.
Why It Matters
The ruling clarifies how authority returns to Israel’s ordinary prosecution hierarchy after a temporary conflict of interest is removed. It also limits the ability of a minister to use appointment powers—or inaction in exercising them—to delay or influence a particular criminal investigation.
At the same time, the dissent highlights an unresolved institutional concern: whether an investigation of alleged misconduct within law-enforcement bodies can command public confidence when the independent supervision contemplated by an earlier judgment never occurred. The majority prioritized the evolving evidentiary record and prosecutorial independence from political control; the dissent prioritized compliance with the previously prescribed external-supervision framework.