Drama in the Supreme Court: After earlier today the representative of the Attorney General's Office, Einar Helman, claimed that there is no authority to declare Netanyahu incapable due to a conflict of interests, he now returns and says, "They shouldn't come and say that it's impossible to declare the Prime Minister incapable due to a conflict of interests."
Helman said, "You can't rule out all possibilities in advance, so that no one will hear that I said that a conflict of interest in the criminal case cannot lead to the incapacity of the Prime Minister. So that no one will ever say that it's impossible due to a conflict of interests to declare the Prime Minister incapable. After a break in the discussion, Helman clarified himself and said, "The reason for a conflict of interests can lead to the Prime Minister's incapacity, but only in extreme cases."
As mentioned earlier today, Helman argued that there is no authority to declare Netanyahu incapable. The Chief Justice asked her question to Baharav-Miara's representative: "Is the Attorney General saying that he sees eye to eye with the Prime Minister that due to a conflict of interest, the Prime Minister is not removed from office?"
Haleman responded to the President, "She does not believe that a breach of order or a conflict of interests leads to the removal of the Prime Minister." He added, "Since forever, the Legal Advisor to the Government has never had the authority to declare the Prime Minister as incapable. According to the law, it is the government, not the Attorney General, that determines if the Prime Minister should be declared incapable."
The government's lawyer: The Incapacity Law is no different from the laws of the previous government
Chairman of the Coalition and initiator of the amendment to the Incapacity Law, Knesset Member Ofir Katz, addressed the judges' allegations earlier, suggesting that there may be room for interpretation regarding the law's applicability, whether it goes into effect immediately or in the next Knesset session. He stated, "As the initiator of the bill and the chairman of the committee that conducted the legislative process, I and my committee colleagues had no doubt that we were legislating an order that would take effect immediately. There is no room for an interpretation contrary to our explicit position."
During the debate, Attorney Michael Rabilo, who represents the government's position independently, rebuked the composition of the judges, saying, "There was a vote on Lapid's objection to applying the law only from the next term, and it was rejected 62-44. You didn't vote in a fourth call in the Knesset."
He also said: "The personalism you are claiming is no less serious than the personalism in the legislation of the replacement government (Netanyahu-Gantz government). They determined then that a prime minister cannot fire certain ministers, the High Court approved the law."