To the anger of many coalition members, Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit will speak out against the Regulation Law in his response to the High Court of Justice. The Regulation Law, which was passed in Knesset earlier in the week, gives the government the authority to legalize over 4,000 buildings in yishuvim and outposts throughout Yehuda and Shomron.
According to a Channel 2 News report, if compelled to represent the state in a petition against the law to the High Court, Mandelblit will not represent the coalition’s position that passed the bill into law, but will present his own legal opinion, which is opposed to the law. MKs from coalition parties feel the attorney general is obliged to present the government’s case and not his own, and he should not be permitted to cite a legal opinion contrary to the decision of the legislature.
It is pointed out that even before the bill was passed into law, Mandelblit spoke out against it, warning it may not withstand a challenge to the High Court in addition to being problematic according to international law.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
3 Responses
Several AGs have refused to represent the government in select cases but I don’t recall any AG ever appearing in court in opposition to the government.
Attorneys cannot just appear before the court – they must do so representing a party to the case. Which party will the AG be appearing for if not the government? And would such an appearance not constitute a conflict of interest – unless his client, the government, waives conflict which I don’t see it doing? It’s a head scratcher for sure.
fire him
Under established Court protocols in EY, the AG may act as an independent agent having standing to represent the “public interest” based on their own view of applicable law in the same manner that courts often designate lawyers to argue positions that otherwise would not be well represented. The coalition MKs have the right for counsel to advocate their position. Here, the expropriation of private lands on some unsubstantiated national security arguments without due process is one of many legal arguments invoked by the AG in his opposition to the new Regulation Law.