The High Court of Justice ruled today that Public Security Minister Tzachi HaNegbi is fit to serve in his senior government post. The Movement for Quality Government (MQG) had petitioned against HaNegbi's appointment because of a series of questionable incidents in which he was involved, but in a 5-2 decision, the court rejected the petition.
MQG enumerated in its petition the past incidents in which the police investigated HaNegbi: his involvement in the Derekh Tzlecha (Bon Voyage) non-profit organization affair, his role in what was known as the Netanyahu/Bar-On/Hevron affair in early 1997, and a 1982 conviction for involvement in a violent confrontation. MQG claimed that his appointment was "extremely unreasonable" in light of the above, as well in view of the Knesset decision that he operated 'with a conflict of interest' as salaried head of Bon Voyage while chairing a Knesset committee dealing with gas-company matters. In addition, MQG noted that as Public Security Minister, HaNegbi decides whether or not to promote the police investigators who interrogated him.
Charges in these cases against HaNegbi, which included fraud and breach of trust, were dismissed or dropped due to a lack of evidence, and the single conviction was on a charge that does not involve the "moral turpitude" that renders a person unfit to serve in the government. HaNegbi's attorney David Liba'i thus claimed that the minister does not have a criminal past that would disqualify him from any cabinet post.
As for the concern raised by MQG that HaNegbi might use his authority over the police to take "revenge" on police officers who investigated him, the state representative in the case, Atty. Osnat Mandel, told the Court that it was a "distant and uncertain concern, one that clearly does not justify disqualifying a minister from his post." The decision is one of public ethics, Mandel argued, not law, and therefore it is a decision "to be left to the voters."
Justice Eliezer Rivlin, writing the majority opinion, explained, "The circumstances in which the Court will find that there is no choice but to order the Prime Minister to discharge a Cabinet minister, even if the latter has not been convicted and has not even been indicted, are exceptional and extreme... The proposal to expand the current law thus that even [in the present circumstances] the Prime Minister must fire a Minister or Deputy Minister comes from good intentions, but is not a worthy one. The damage involved therein is greater than the benefit that will be gained."