In a recent statement to the High Court of Justice, Attorney Michael Rabilo, who serves as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s lawyer, defended a recently passed law that prevents the court or the attorney general from ordering a prime minister to step down. Rabilo argued that this law aims to protect the democratic principle that only voters should determine their leader’s identity. He cited Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, emphasizing that removing a prime minister through judicial intervention would undermine the foundations of democracy, and the law passed in March merely codified this principle.
Rabilo also contended that the court lacks the authority to intervene in this legislation because it amends one of Israel’s quasi-constitutional Basic Laws, which, in his view, can only be reviewed by the Knesset. Another government lawyer made similar claims in a separate hearing earlier in the month regarding petitions against the coalition’s reasonableness law.
A hearing on the recusal legislation is scheduled for September 28 before an 11-justice panel. Critics of the law argue that it was specifically designed to prevent the court or the attorney general from ordering Netanyahu to recuse himself, making it unsuitable as part of a Basic Law.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara urged the High Court to rule that the recusal law should only take effect after the next election, emphasizing that Basic Laws should not be used to address personal ethical conduct and criminal law issues.
The main argument put forth by Rabilo and the government is that political leaders can only be replaced through elections, not through judicial intervention. They contend that recusal should only apply in cases of physical or mental incapacitation, and the law merely clarifies this point. They also argue that delaying the implementation of Amendment 12 would harm the electorate’s right to vote.
Rabilo further asserted that the law does not change Netanyahu’s obligation under the 2020 conflict of interest agreement, which prohibits him from involvement in actions that could impact his trial, such as judicial appointments or broader changes to the judiciary.
Opponents of the law claim that it was designed to protect Netanyahu from potential recusal orders, which they argue constitutes an abuse of Knesset authority to pass and amend Basic Laws. Rabilo countered this by stating that the legislation’s formulation preceded the filing of petitions requesting recusal orders, and it was crafted in a general and long-term manner, not specifically tailored to Netanyahu’s situation.
Rabilo also rejected the court’s authority to apply the doctrine of “misuse of constituent authority” to strike down or reinterpret the law and argued against the court’s right to delay its implementation, maintaining that the Knesset had made a deliberate and informed decision to have it come into immediate effect. He emphasized that the law is a constitutional amendment designed to promote governmental stability, legal certainty, and the principle that changes in government should occur through established constitutional mechanisms.