High Court Rules State Comptroller Overstepped Authority in Parts of October 7 Probe

Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled today (Monday), unanimously accepting two petitions dealing with the review procedures being led by State Comptroller Matanyahu Englman regarding the events of October 7 and the Swords of Iron war. The court found that in some cases the comptroller acted outside the bounds of his authority, while in others the right of the parties under review to present their arguments was harmed. The ruling was written by Justice Daphne Barak-Erez and joined by Justices David Mintz, Yael Wilner, Ofer Grosskopf, and Alex Stein.

The first petition was filed by the Military Advocate General’s Defense Counsel and focused on examinations the comptroller carried out on core security issues, including border defense in the Gaza Strip and the chain of events on October 7. In the ruling, Justice Barak-Erez drew a distinction between the State Comptroller’s authority to conduct oversight and the conducting of an investigation. According to her, oversight is meant to examine actions in light of accepted norms, while an investigation is meant to clarify the factual foundation itself. She also determined that the comptroller’s authority does not directly extend to clear-cut questions of policy and strategy in the areas of security and foreign affairs.

The second petition, filed by the Movement for Quality Government, dealt with reviews that had already reached the draft stage and had been sent out for responses, including reports on security at the party in Re’im and on the handling of civilian fatalities. The High Court ruled that in these proceedings, the right to be heard of those who could be harmed by the conclusions was violated, after drafts that already included findings of personal responsibility had been formulated.

The justices argued that it is not enough to give people an opportunity to make their claims only after the initial conclusions have already been written. Accordingly, the court ruled that the comptroller may continue these reviews only if he restarts them from the beginning, without relying on the existing drafts. Justice Ofer Grosskopf wrote in his decision: "There is no place, at this time, to continue carrying out State Comptroller reviews in the areas in question, which concern issues at the very heart of the matter."