High Court rejects last legal challenge to Netanyahu staying PM

All three justices hinted that making a ruling now is premature, and will only become relevant once Netanyahu's candidacy to form a government is presented to President Reuven Rivlin.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
A Likud party election campaign billboard depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen above a billboard depicting Benny Gantz, leader of Blue and White party, in Petah Tikva, Israel (photo credit: NIR ELIAS / REUTERS)
A Likud party election campaign billboard depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen above a billboard depicting Benny Gantz, leader of Blue and White party, in Petah Tikva, Israel
(photo credit: NIR ELIAS / REUTERS)
The High Court of Justice rejected the last remaining legal challenge to Benjamin Netanyahu remaining prime minister, following his indictment for bribery on November 21.
As a result, Netanyahu will remain prime minister at least until March 2 and could potentially continue afterward, even at such point as his trial for bribery begins.
The Likud responded that the court was right to reject the petition, because “in a democracy, only the people decide who will lead them.”
Blue and White leader Benny Gantz also praised the verdict, saying it was the correct decision and “Netanyahu must be defeated in the court of public opinion in the ballot box.”
Technically, the court only ordered the petition withdrawn and did not reject it fully, leaving the door open to disqualifying Netanyahu post-election.
But in practical terms, and from the tone of the ruling, the court has made it clear it wants no part in forcing Netanyahu out of office any earlier than at a point where the law demands this unambiguously, leaving the question of who leads the country to the voters.
Before and after Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s November 21 decision to issue an indictment against Netanyahu, there was high speculation that the High Court might fire the prime minister, on the basis of its two-decade precedent in which all indicted ministers have been obligated to resign.
On the basis of those two decades of judicial rulings, around 70 hi-tech officials petitioned the High Court to fire Netanyahu before the election, or at least determine his status, so voters would know whether he could form the next government after the March 2 election.
The petitioners said that the question was about the right of the voters to know whether one of the two candidates for prime minister was eligible or not. However, the court was persuaded by Mandelblit’s office that elections themselves are extremely uncertain, and that the process of political parties recommending a candidate for prime minister was also uncertain.
In light of these uncertainties, and due to the strong possibility that Netanyahu may never be able to get 61 MKs to support him, the court said it should not step in prematurely to strike down his candidacy, needlessly angering significant portions of the country who support him. “The election period is a politically sensitive time, so it is fitting to act with heavy restraint…this is in light of the most complex and sensitive period without historical precedent within which the State Israel currently finds itself,” wrote the court.
At the same time, the court rejected technical arguments by Netanyahu’s lawyers and by the Likud party, saying that it did not even have the theoretical jurisdiction to decide Netanyahu’s status. Rather, the court said that it was empowered to decide Netanyahu’s status, and was merely declining to do so at this time.
The court had heard oral arguments on the issue on Tuesday.
Although the High Court announced that it would decide on the matter at a later point, the overall feel of the justices’ questions to the lawyers was that they would very much prefer to stay out of the issue. Chief Justice Esther Hayut, her deputy Justice Hanan Melcer and Justice Uzi Vogelman conducted the hearing.
Around 70 hi-tech officials had requested the court rule on Netanyahu’s eligibility to form a government before the upcoming March 2 election, mainly due to the charge of bribery which he faces in Case 4000 – also known as the “Bezeq-Walla Affair.”
During the hearing, lawyers for the petitioners said the High Court had set a clear precedent when it forced Arye Deri to resign as minister upon indictment for bribery 20 years ago and the precedent demands that the court do the same in Netanyahu’s case.
All three justices hinted that making a ruling now is premature and will only become relevant once Netanyahu’s candidacy to form a government is presented to President Reuven Rivlin following the upcoming election in March.
They hammered the petitioners’ lawyer, Daphna Holech-Lechner, to give them an example where the courts had been asked to make a preelection declaratory statement about the status of a candidate before there was an explicit legal obligation to do so.
Gil Hoffman contributed to this report.