High Court Rejects Petitions, Clearing State Prosecutor to Oversee Sde Teiman Leak Investigation

The Supreme Court today (Wednesday) rejected a petition seeking to intervene in how the investigation into the leak of the video from the Sde Teiman facility is being conducted and to order police to carry out certain investigative steps. The decision was reached by a majority of President Yitzhak Amit and Justice Khaled Kabub, against the dissenting opinion of Justice David Mintz, who believed the petition should be partially accepted.

The petition, filed by the “We Chose Life” organization, addressed, among other issues, oversight of the investigation and whether the state prosecutor is barred from handling the case. The petitioners asked to give the justice minister additional time to appoint an outside supervisor, and to order further lines of investigation.

The issue began with a legal opinion from the Justice Ministry’s legal adviser, which determined that, at the initial stage, senior figures in the law enforcement system—including the attorney general and the state prosecutor—were barred from overseeing the handling of the case.

It was later determined that the justice minister could appoint an external official to fulfill the attorney general’s duties in this matter. However, his attempts to appoint several individuals to the role, including Commissioner Ilan Kula and retired Judge Yosef Ben Hamo, were canceled or disqualified because they did not meet the conditions set to prevent political influence over the process. The minister subsequently did not propose an alternative candidate who met those conditions, while police continued to conduct the investigation independently, under the supervision of their senior leadership.

After the investigative steps were completed, police determined that the state prosecutor had not been involved in the events under investigation and that there was no need to take his testimony. As a result, the Justice Ministry’s legal adviser submitted an updated legal opinion, stating that the restriction on the state prosecutor had been lifted.

Against the backdrop of this development, the current petition was filed. The petitioners sought to challenge the possibility of lifting the restriction at this stage and to allow the justice minister to complete his appointment of an external supervisor to oversee the investigation.

Justice David Mintz disagreed with the majority’s position, arguing that the petition should be partially accepted and that a conditional order should be issued to the justice minister. In his view, as long as the investigation was not conducted under the required external oversight, it could not be determined that there had been a sufficient change in the basis for assessing whether the state prosecutor was barred from involvement. Mintz emphasized in this context that “external oversight is an essential condition.”