High Court Allows Justice Minister Levin to Appoint External Oversight for Tomer-Yerushalmi Probe

The High Court of Justice ruled on Thursday that Justice Minister Yariv Levin has the authority to appoint an external civil servant — not from the Attorney General’s Office or the State Attorney’s Office — to accompany and supervise the investigation into former Chief Military Advocate General (MAG) Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and other senior officials in the military prosecution system.

The landmark decision, handed down by Justices Yael Wilner, Alex Stein, and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, cites the “exceptional and extreme circumstances” surrounding the case and the conflicts of interest involving Israel’s top legal officials.

However, the court disqualified Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kola from the role — despite being appointed by Levin — ruling that the law prohibits him from holding any other position while serving as ombudsman.

Court Cites Conflict of Interest at Top Legal Levels

Justice Yael Wilner, writing for the majority, said both State Attorney Amit Isman and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara are personally or institutionally entangled in the affair and may even be required to testify.

“They have subordination relationships with senior officials who may themselves be investigated,” Wilner wrote. “A thorough examination of the conflicts of interest was not conducted in a way that allows their office to supervise this probe.”

Justice Kanfi-Steinitz agreed, adding that oversight by senior prosecutors could compromise the credibility of the investigation.

Justice Alex Stein stressed that public confidence and the appearance of justice required an external appointment, but warned:

“Even in this special situation, we must avoid any political intrusion into criminal investigations.”

Strict Guidelines for the Appointment

The High Court set out binding criteria for Levin’s choice. The appointed overseer must be:

• A senior civil servant and distinguished jurist;

• Experienced in criminal law, prosecution, or investigative discretion;

• Unaffiliated with politics, past or present.

“Authority over a concrete investigation cannot be given to anyone with political ties,” Wilner emphasized.

Justice Stein added that the candidate should ideally resemble “a senior state prosecutor — independent, expert in criminal law, and free from personal interests.”

The court also ruled that the appointee may utilize personnel from the State Attorney’s Office if needed to exercise oversight powers.

Stein further suggested that if a judge is chosen, it should be a retired district judge, not a sitting one, since serving judges depend on Levin for promotion.

Possible candidates fitting the court’s parameters include Competition Authority Commissioner Michal Cohen, Securities Authority Chairman Sefi Singer, and Ombudsman for State Representatives Menachem Finkelstein — though Finkelstein’s prior mentorship of Tomer-Yerushalmi makes his appointment unlikely.

Levin may also appoint a retired judge as a civil servant, thereby expanding the available pool.

“No Political Interference in Investigations”

Justice Wilner underscored that the ruling does not undermine the Attorney General’s role as Israel’s chief law enforcement authority, nor does it grant Levin the power to intervene directly in any investigation.

“Transferring the appointment power to the minister is not direct interference,” she wrote. “It is limited to selecting the civil servant who will hold supervisory powers, with no ongoing connection between the minister and that appointee.”

Still, the justices criticized Levin for acting without formal authority when he unilaterally ruled that Baharav-Miara was barred from overseeing the investigation, clarifying that such determinations rest with the ministry’s legal adviser, Yael Kotik.

Wilner expressed regret that Levin and the Attorney General’s Office failed to reach a compromise, reiterating that the court’s earlier proposal to appoint a retired Supreme Court justice or senior regulatory official remains valid.

“The door remains open for an agreed solution that will lower tensions and restore public trust,” Wilner wrote.

Background: The Sde Teiman Abuse Video Affair

The investigation centers on allegations that Tomer-Yerushalmi and senior MAG officials leaked to Channel 12 a video showing IDF soldiers abusing a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman base, in which five guards were later indicted for aggravated assault.

Investigators suspect the officials covered up their own role in the leak by forming a fictitious internal probe that later declared failure — despite the evidence pointing to their involvement.

The Movement for Quality Government, which petitioned against Kola’s appointment, welcomed the ruling but warned of dangerous precedents:

“Allowing a political minister to influence criminal investigations is a slippery slope,” the group said. “This is especially worrying when the minister has made weakening the justice system his agenda. Political considerations must never infiltrate criminal procedures.”

The Attorney General’s Office and Deputy AG Gil Limon informed the court last week that they accepted its principle of external oversight and had proposed that a retired Supreme Court justice accompany the investigation.

Levin’s Response

Before the decision, Minister Levin said that blocking Kola’s appointment would mean “the court has enabled a cover-up of the investigation.”

He previously offered a compromise under which Kola and a second civil servant — chosen by the court — would jointly oversee the investigation, but Baharav-Miara rejected the plan.

The High Court’s ruling effectively ends that dispute, authorizing Levin to make a new appointment under the strict guidelines set out by the judges — but under close public and judicial scrutiny.