Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana informed the High Court of Justice today (Sunday) that he will not hold a repeat vote for the position of State Comptroller, despite the judges’ suggestion during a hearing on petitions filed against the election of attorney Michael Rabello to the position.
“The Knesset has spoken," Ohana wrote on X.
In an official statement issued by the Knesset, it was stated: “The Speaker of the Knesset wishes to announce that, for all the reasons detailed in the preliminary response to the petition and during the hearing, he has decided not to hold a repeat vote in the election for State Comptroller."
The announcement comes after the dramatic hearing held last Thursday at the High Court on petitions seeking to invalidate Rabello’s election. The judges suggested that the Knesset hold a new election and requested its position by today.
At the center of the petitions are claims that Likud MKs documented their votes behind the curtain, in a manner that harmed the secrecy of the process. It was also claimed that Rabello has a conflict of interest due to his role as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attorney.
Justice Noam Sohlberg said during the hearing that there was an “undesirable cloud" hanging over the election process and clarified that the panel intended to issue an order nisi regarding the issue of ballot secrecy.
According to him, some of the documented votes appeared “problematic on their face," especially in light of the position of the Knesset’s legal counsel on the matter.
The petitioners argued that documenting the vote turned the process into a kind of “loyalty test" and undermined the purpose of a secret ballot, which is intended to allow Knesset members to vote without political pressure.
On the other hand, the justices questioned whether every violation of secrecy rules justifies canceling election results.
Representatives of the Knesset and Likud rejected the claims and argued that no instruction had been given to MKs to photograph their ballots. According to them, if such an instruction had existed, it would have been a far broader phenomenon rather than involving only a small number of Knesset members.
Addressing the claims of a conflict of interest, the panel signaled that it was not inclined at this stage to intervene in Rabello’s appointment. The justices raised the possibility of resolving the matter through a conflict-of-interest arrangement, while Rabello’s representative emphasized that he is a professional attorney and that there are no legal grounds to disqualify his appointment.