The High Court of Justice annulled on Sunday Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s decision to appoint State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula to oversee the criminal investigation into the Sde Teiman video leak, but upheld his right to appoint an official from outside of prosecution agencies to supervise the investigation.
In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Kula cannot oversee the investigation due to the law banning the ombudsman for judges from serving in any other position, or carrying out any other function other than ombudsman.
But the court decided that Levin did have the authority to appoint an official outside of the Attorney General’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office, due to the “irregular and extreme circumstances” of the situation.
Due to concerns about political interference in criminal proceedings, the court nevertheless imposed strict restrictions on who Levin could appoint to the position, insisting that the official have strong law enforcement credentials and have no political affiliation.
Liberal government watchdog groups argued that Levin’s appointment of Kula violated democratic principles according to which politicians must not be involved in the criminal investigation process.
Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition
by email and never miss our top stories
By signing up, you agree to the terms
But Levin’s attorney argued in court that since officials from the Attorney General’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office were involved in a previous internal probe by the Military Advocate General’s Office into the Sde Teiman leak that recommended closing the case without a criminal investigation, those agencies had institutional conflicts of interest in overseeing the current investigation, opened after the former military advocate general admitted she authorized the leak.
Judge Asher Kula at the Nazareth District Court, June 7, 2022. (David Cohen/Flash90)
Levin has yet to issue a response to the ruling.
Likud MK Avichai Buaron, who petitioned the court against Baharav-Miara’s involvement in the investigation, described the ruling as “a great victory for everyone for whom the truth and justice are important,” and said the court upheld his contention that the justice minister was, under the circumstances, the only authority empowered to appoint a supervisor for the investigation.
The Israel Democracy Guard, which petitioned the court against Kula’s appointment, said its position had also been upheld by the court since Kula’s appointment was annulled. The organization said it would scrutinize Levin’s next choice to oversee the investigation to ensure it complies with the court’s decision and restrictions.
In October this year, former military advocate general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted that she had authorized the leak of a video purporting to show the abuse of a Palestinian security detainee by IDF soldiers at the Sde Teiman military facility from July 2024.
Levin appointed Kula to oversee the criminal investigation of the leak, asserting that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara had a conflict of interest since she had overseen a previous, internal probe into the leak by the Military Advocate General’s Office.
Baharav-Miara opposed Levin’s decision and petitions to the High Court were filed for and against the justice minister’s position, leading to Sunday’s ruling.
Justice Yael Willner in her opinion for the court noted the attorney general’s role in overseeing the internal probe, as well as the involvement of other senior officials including State Attorney Amit Aisman who participated in a crucial meeting about the conclusions of that preliminary investigation.
She also noted that these senior officials might will be required to give testimony, even if not as suspects, and wrote they therefore could not see all the investigative material or manage the investigation, making it “extremely difficult” to give oversight of the investigation to those officials, or anyone subject to their authority.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin attends a session at the Knesset in Jerusalem, October 29, 2025. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
Willner underlined that “the principle of the independence of the criminal prosecution service has an elevated status in our legal system, and therefore the rule is that there is no room for any political entity to interfere in criminal investigations.”
But the “irregular and extreme circumstances” of the current case justified “a demarcated and limited departure” from that principle, wrote Willner.
She also wrote that Levin would not have authority over the investigation, but was merely re-delegating it from the attorney general to another, qualified public official and that there would be no connection between Levin and that official once appointed.
This meant that Levin’s involvement in the investigative proceedings would be merely “indirect intervention,” and not the kind of “direct involvement” the petitioners expressed concern over.
Regarding Levin’s appointment of Kula, Willner said the clause in the law for state ombudsman for judges barring that official from having any other role was specifically to avoid a situation in which the ombudsman might have any conflict of interest in overseeing disciplinary procedures for judges, directly contradicting Levin’s claim on the issue.
She also wrote that even though at least one ombudsman in the past did hold an additional public function, that did not justify deviating from the explicit working of the law.
The judge stated that when transferring the authorities of the attorney general to supervise a criminal investigation to an external public official, that official must have a senior rank, be an expert in legal affairs, and have a job closely connected to criminal investigations or prosecutions.
Willner said such authorities cannot be transferred to a public official who has any political affiliations, either in the past or present, and added that the minister could not transfer these authorities at all when the subject of the investigation is a political figure.
The ruling also implied that Baharav-Miara may be able to return to manage the Sde Teiman leak case once her conflict of interest in the case is resolved, as set out by the law under which Levin appointed a supervisor for the investigation in the first place, which states that the decision is in effect “until the [legal] restriction is removed.”
You appreciate our journalism
You clearly find our careful reporting valuable, in a time when facts are often distorted and news coverage often lacks context.
Your support is essential to continue our work. We want to continue delivering the professional journalism you value, even as the demands on our newsroom have grown dramatically since October 7.
So today, please consider joining our reader support group, The Times of Israel Community. For as little as $6 a month you’ll become our partners while enjoying The Times of Israel AD-FREE, as well as accessing exclusive content available only to Times of Israel Community members.
Thank you,
David Horovitz, Founding Editor of The Times of Israel
Join Our Community
Join Our Community
Already a member? Sign in to stop seeing this
