The Movement for Quality Government responded on Wednesday to the attorney-general's position on the violation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conflict of interest agreement for his corruption trials.
Attorney-general Gali Baharav-Miara in early April responded to petitions calling for Netanyahu to be placed in contempt of court for a speech in which he announced that he would be involving himself with the judicial reform. The attorney-general said that he was still required to abide by the agreement, which was organized by her predecessor to condition Netanyahu's 2020 forming of a government.
MQG head Dr. Eliad Shraga said that they were disappointed with the response to the petition, which deviated from her previous strictness on the matter.
"If it looks, smells and sounds like a violation of the ruling - it is a violation punishable by contempt of court in a way that requires the imposition of sanctions on the Prime Minister," said Shraga. "We are very sorry that at the moment of truth, the attorney-general chose to withdraw from her clear position, and we hope that the court will rule according to our request."
Another NGO files petition to remove Netanyahu from PMO
On Sunday, the NGO Israel Democracy Guard filed a petition to the High Court calling for Netanyahu to be made ineligible for the office of prime minister.
The petition, which closely followed previous NGO petitions of the same objectives and reasoning, also said Netanyahu should be ousted for violating the conflict of interest agreement, the attorney-general's opinion and High Court of Justice rulings.
The NGO said that Netanyahu had expressed that the ban on his involvement had been removed due to the passing of the incapacitation law. The incapacitation law amended Basic Law: The Government specified that the prime minister could only be declared unfit for service for medical reasons.
In late March, the High Court rejected a similar petition from the NGO calling for the removal of Netanyahu from office. The court had said that such judicial intervention was a last resort after other legal courses of action had been exhausted. The petition was viewed by the court as unacceptable in its framing.
If held in contempt of court, the judiciary would be able to level corrective measures like fines and short jail terms until he followed the conflict of interest guidelines. The agreement holds that Netanyahu is not supposed to involve himself in appointments of law enforcement and judiciary officials who could impact his corruption trials.
In February, Baharav-Miara had said in a letter to Netanyahu that his involvement in the flagship legislation of the judicial reform, which would change the composition and procedures of the judicial selection committee, would be against the conflict of interest agreement.