Israel’s Supreme Court recently held a hearing to discuss arguments on an “incapacitation” amendment, which limits the government’s ability to state that the prime minister is incapable of delivering his responsibilities. This amendment was passed by the government back in March, prior to the corruption trials of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Find an overview of this event on Youtube.
The “incapacitation” amendment has been an important aspect of the widespread anti-government demonstrations that have been occurring in Israel for several months. The Supreme Court has followed up on the petitions raised by various groups and individuals, which includes the Israel Attorney General Gali Baharav Miara and the Movement for Quality Government, one of Israel’s most substantial public interest groups. As a result, a hearing was held with 11 of the 15 justices present in attendance.
The government’s representative, Yitzhak Bart, contended that the amendment’s intention was not to alter the law. Instead, it aimed to provide a clearer definition of the term “incapacitated” and establish the responsible party for making the corresponding determinations. Bart argues that the previous Basic Law was ambiguous about who had the power to declare a prime minister unfit for duty. Supreme Court’s authority to judicially review issues related to Basic Laws is also challenged by the government .
At the hearing, the focus was primarily on the validity of the amendment. Justices expressed skepticism on whether this amendment, which had allowed Netanyahu to implement his judicial reforms, was a “personal” law. They questioned whether such law-making potentially encourages governmental corruption. Following the amendment in March, the definition of incapacitation is now solely contingent on the determinations made by a prime minister or a supermajority of the cabinet.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak commented on X (formerly Twitter) about the matter, criticizing the law as a personal tool for the prime minister’s benefit. He also acknowledged the protestors who have been marching against such reforms since January. More details on the hearing can be found in the full report.