The police reviewed the allegations linked to Acting Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit and decided against launching an investigation. Shortly thereafter, Justice Minister Yariv Levin sent a letter declaring his intent to file a complaint against Amit, stating, “There are questions that demand clarification and warrant initiating a procedure to file a complaint against him.” Meanwhile, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara stated: “There is no justification for delaying the election of a Supreme Court president.”
The head of the Police Investigations and Intelligence Division, Superintendent Boaz Ballat, on Thursday, announced that he would not seek permission from the Attorney General to launch an investigation into Judge Amit, stating that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
According to a Ynet report, Supreme Court presidential candidate Yitzhak Amit has been involved in legal proceedings in recent years related to his property in Tel Aviv. However, in these cases, he appears under his former last name, Goldfreind, and reportedly did not notify the court administration about this, as required (Report: High Court President Wannabe Amit Violated Conflict of Interests, Signed Past Name in Case Document).
During this period, while serving as a Supreme Court judge, Amit presided over cases involving the lawyers who represented him, the municipality that filed accusations against him, and the promotion of a judge involved in a potential government renovation project for the property, Ynet reported.
Ballat’s decision followed a discussion he had led with investigation officials and a review conducted by the team that examined the publications about Amit, including his publicly disclosed letter of response to the allegations against him. Ballat stated, “No suspicion arises, and there is no basis for requesting the Attorney General to initiate a criminal investigation.” The Attorney General reaffirmed: “There is no justification for delaying the deadline for electing the President of the Supreme Court.”
Meanwhile, Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced his intention to file a complaint against Judge Amit, citing a conflict of interest. Levin stated, “The totality of the events I described presents an apparent picture of deliberate and repeated conduct by Judge Amit in violation of Rule 15(b)(2) of the Ethics Rules.”
Levin concluded his letter by asserting, “I believe that the accumulation of the matters detailed above, along with the questions that demand clarification, necessitates initiating a procedure to file a complaint against Judge Amit.”
On Wednesday night, Justice Minister Levin petitioned the High Court of Justice, asserting that delaying the convening of the Judicial Selection Committee was “unavoidable” until a “thorough and comprehensive investigation” into the allegations against Justice Yitzhak Amit could be conducted.
Levin argued that “due to the significant change in circumstances, which were not known to the court at the time of its previous decision,” it would not be appropriate at this stage—before the necessary facts have been investigated—to bring the matter of electing a Supreme Court president before the Judicial Selection Committee.
Levin wrote Attorney Leah Rakover, Legal Counsel to the Justice Ministry and the Judicial Selection Committee:
1. According to Section 18(a) of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5784-1984 (hereinafter: the “Courts Law”), the judiciary has the authority to file complaints against judges based on specific criteria outlined in the section.
2. These criteria include instances where:
– “The judge acted improperly in the performance of his duties.”
– “The judge behaved in a manner that does not fit the status of a judge in Israel.”
– “The judge violated any of the rules of ethics for judges established under Section 16A.”3. Under Section 16A of the Courts Law, the Rules of Ethics for Judges, 5767-2007 (hereinafter: the “Rules of Ethics”) were established, which explicitly prohibit judges from presiding over cases where a conflict of interest exists, particularly under Rule 15 of the Rules of Ethics.
4. Recent media reports, primarily by Netael Bendel, the legal correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, have presented apparent evidence suggesting that Deputy Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit (hereinafter: “Judge Amit”) presided over cases while in a conflict of interest, in violation of Rule 15. Furthermore, these reports allege that Judge Amit failed to notify the court administration as required.
5. These revelations follow an earlier report by Kalman Libeskind in Maariv in August 2023, which alleged that Judge Amit engaged in conduct involving a conflict of interest in 13 different cases.
At the end of a 6-page letter to his ministry’s legal counsel, Levin concluded:
The series of events described provides an apparent picture of deliberate and repeated conduct by Judge Yitzhak Amit that violates Rule 15(b)(2) of the Rules of Ethics and Section 77A of the Courts Law, both of which explicitly prohibit presiding over cases while in a conflict of interest.
In light of the above, I believe the accumulation of these matters, along with the questions requiring clarification, necessitates the initiation of proceedings to file a complaint against Judge Amit under Section 18(a) of the Courts Law.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and your efforts in addressing it, including the appointment of a complainant on my behalf to carry out the necessary complaint proceedings.
