High Court Debates Controversial Amendment to Police Ordinance
The High Court of Justice in Israel is currently deliberating on a contentious amendment to the Police Ordinance, commonly referred to as the 'Ben Gabir Law.' This amendment, which grants the Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gabir extensive authority over the police, has sparked significant debate and concern among various stakeholders. The live hearing is being broadcast on the Walla website, attracting widespread attention.
Commissioner Shabtai's Concerns
Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai has voiced strong objections to the amendment, emphasizing that it undermines the fundamental principles of police work. According to Shabtai, the police must operate independently of political influence to effectively enforce the law. He stressed the importance of maintaining a clear separation between policy-making and the operational independence of the police. Shabtai argued that the amendment could lead to direct political interference in police operations, which would be detrimental to the force's ability to function impartially.
Minister Ben Gabir's Position
In contrast, Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gabir has defended the amendment, arguing that it is essential for him to implement his policy within the police force. Ben Gabir dismissed Shabtai's concerns as unfounded and accused the commissioner of attempting to undermine his authority. Ben Gabir's legal representative, Attorney Nadav Atzani, is handling his defense, highlighting the minister's belief that prioritizing police activities is a crucial part of his role.
Petitioners and Legal Arguments
The petition against the amendment was filed by a coalition of organizations and individuals, including the Movement for the Quality of Government, MK Miki Levy, and the Civil Rights Association. They argue that the amendment allows for undue political interference in police operations, effectively making the minister a 'super commissioner.' The ombudsman, Beharev Miara, has also expressed concerns, recommending that the High Court provide an interpretation of the amendment to prevent political interference in police work.
- The High Court hearing, which began at 10:00 AM, has seen various legal arguments presented by both sides. Attorney Yitzhak Brett, representing the Knesset, argued that the amendment merely formalizes the minister's authority to outline policy for the police, in line with previous committee recommendations. Brett dismissed claims that the amendment would lead to political considerations influencing police work.
- During the hearing, Mr. President Fogelman highlighted the unique nature of the police force, implying that its operations should remain free from political influence. Attorney Brett countered by stating that the minister's election through a political system does not inherently mean that his decisions will be politically motivated.
- The petitioners, including former senior police officers and various civil rights organizations, maintain that the amendment disrupts the balance of power within the police force. They argue that it compromises the independence of the police, making it susceptible to political directives. This, they claim, could undermine public trust in law enforcement.
