Supreme Court Judge David Mintz today (Sunday) ordered Gali Baharav-Miara to respond to the petition of the Lavi organization.
The advisor will be required to provide explanations to the court as to why she is not withdrawing from any involvement in the affairs of the 'Movement for Quality of Government', this against the backdrop of an extensive support campaign that the movement has conducted in her behalf.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The petition, which was submitted about a week and a half ago through attorney Nati Rom, presents a serious picture of a conflict of interest.
According to the petition, the Movement for Quality Government has been running an extensive and well-invested signage campaign across the country for some time, featuring Baharav-Miara's picture and messages to strengthen her status. At the same time, the movement is raising funds from the public under the title of strengthening the advisor's "struggle" against the government.
The Lavi organization claims that this is a "prohibited benefit given to a public employee." The petition emphasizes that according to the Gift Law and the Supreme Court ruling, a gift does not have to be material - even a public relations campaign with a large monetary value constitutes a gift for all intents and purposes.
Lavi's main argument is that it is impossible for a body that frequently appears as a litigant in petitions in which the Ombudsman decides, to also be the body that finances and produces an image campaign for her.
""Silence in such a case is destructive to the constitutional fabric and public trust," the petition states.
It was also noted that despite an official appeal that the organization made to the consultant in July, she did not act to stop the campaign, and it continued unhindered even after she learned about it.
Before filing the petition, the Ministry of Justice claimed that since the campaign "was not carried out with the knowledge or at the request" of the consultant, there was nothing wrong with it. The Lavi organization rejected this claim outright, defining it as "baseless and dangerous," one that effectively justifies the granting of benefits to public employees by interested parties.
This is the second time that the Lavie organization has filed a petition regarding the relationship between the Legal Advisor to the Government and the Movement for Quality Government. The first time, the petition was rejected on the grounds that the organization did not exhaust the procedures with the Legal Advisor to the Government before submitting the petition, and now, after receiving the Attorney General's response, the Lavie organization has petitioned the court again, which, as mentioned, requires her to respond to the claims.
The Lavi organization responded: "We welcome Judge Mintz's decision. This is one of the most serious cases of violation of moral integrity in the public service. A movement that repeatedly appears as a litigant before the Legal Counsel to the Government is generating an expensive campaign in favor of those who decide its affairs, and the counselor is not acting to stop this.".
