The High Court of Justice on Sunday night issued a new interim order, signed by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, freezing the appointment of retired judge Joseph Ben-Hamo as the accompanying figure to the Sde Teiman video-leak investigation.
The conditional order states that “at this stage and for reasons of caution, the appointment shall be suspended until another decision is made,” effectively halting the appointment regardless of developments in a parallel petition on the case that concerns ministerial authority.
Alongside this, the justices issued a conditional order instructing Justice Minister Yariv Levin to explain why Ben-Hamo’s appointment should not be canceled – based on the legal and procedural flaws raised in the petition.
Unlike the interim order, the conditional order does not freeze the appointment; rather, it signals that the court views the petition as raising substantial questions. The court set Thursday morning at 9 a.m. as the deadline for the state’s responses, which will serve as substitutes for full affidavits and briefs, streamlining proceedings ahead of Thursday’s hearing.
This is the second freeze imposed on the appointment since Thursday, and it means Ben-Hamo cannot assume the role under any circumstances until after the hearing.
The Israel Bar Association’s petition – which challenges Ben-Hamo’s suitability under the narrow criteria set by the court – is running in parallel to the earlier petition filed by Mishmar HaDemocratia HaIsraelit (“Israeli democracy guard” in Hebrew), which challenges Levin’s authority to make such an appointment to begin with.
Each petition now carries its own active interim freeze, leaving the appointment blocked on both fronts.
Sde Teiman probe: Levin battles Court over judge criteria
Earlier on Sunday, Levin petitioned the court to lift Thursday’s initial interim freeze, arguing that it had misunderstood the scope of the earlier petition and that its ruling did not address Ben-Hamo’s most recent appointment. Levin maintains that the court merely invalidated his previous nomination, not his authority to appoint an accompanying figure at all.
That dispute grew out of Thursday evening’s developments, when Levin activated Ben-Hamo’s appointment and Mishmar HaDemocratia petitioned the court against it within hours. Amit granted that request, freezing the appointment to “maintain the status quo.”
The prosecution later requested an additional hearing on that ruling, asking the justices to revisit Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara’s conflict of interest and the broader question of ministerial intervention in an active criminal investigation – a rare and sensitive legal issue.
Levin has since argued that the investigation is structurally compromised due to Baharav-Miara’s initial involvement, claiming it now continues without proper oversight. Petitioners and the Attorney-General’s Office counter that Ben-Hamo does not meet the criteria set by the court and warn that the appointment risks political interference in a sensitive probe.
The underlying investigation focuses on the leak of a July 2024 video showing IDF reservists abusing a Palestinian detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility and on subsequent allegations of obstruction of justice. The video surfaced publicly in August. Earlier this month, former Military Advocate-General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi admitted to authorizing its release and resigned.
Ordinarily, the prosecution would lead such an inquiry. But because Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Aisman, and other senior prosecutors took part in the initial probe – during which Tomer-Yerushalmi’s role was not detected – Baharav-Miara later recused herself and appointed Aisman to lead the investigation.
Levin argues that this makes the process deficient; the prosecution maintains Aisman is fully capable of overseeing the case.
Levin’s first nominee, retired judge Asher Kula, was disqualified by the court due to statutory restrictions tied to his role as judicial complaints investigator.
While the justices upheld Levin’s authority to appoint an accompanying figure, they imposed strict criteria aimed at protecting prosecutorial independence, given how unusual it is for an external figure – selected by a politician – to be embedded in a live criminal investigation.
Levin then appointed Ben-Hamo, arguing that the criteria were “impossible to fulfill.”
But the Bar Association’s petition challenges that appointment directly, citing his lack of criminal-law experience, his ad hoc designation as a nominal state employee, his reported previous exploration of running for mayor of Tiberias on the Likud ticket, and the risk of political alignment – all issues the Court’s criteria were designed to avoid.
The petition also references remarks by Likud MK Moshe Saada suggesting the accompanying figure is expected to order an interrogation under caution of the attorney-general, framing the appointment as a step toward her removal. The petition argues that such motives constitute “extraneous considerations” that would render the appointment unlawful.