When Mandelblit tramples the law in an acting state attorney's office, he steps on a path that the Supreme Court paved for him.

• Photography:

  Judge Mazuz // Photo: Oren Ben Hakon

Even among people who are not the home crowd of Justice Minister Amir Ohana, recent days have realized that Attorney General Avihai Mandelblit is acting on the temporary appointment to replace the State Attorney, illegally and unreasonably.

The law on appointment is clear and clear: the authority is in the hands of the minister, and should not even be consulted by the Judiciary for a three-month appointment. Mendelblit has not published an opinion on the matter neither law nor judgment. All it has is a gut feeling or intuition.

Ask anyone familiar with the concept of "rule of law": Can one person's intuition prevail against explicit law? You will get a negative answer.

Every person except one. Judge Manny Mazuz, who in a speech two years ago said that the Attorney General sometimes has no choice, and when he encounters cases where the government acts lawfully but "his legal intuition tells him it is illegal and although he cannot point to a law or ruling that underpins it "He has to stand behind such a statement, even if it is not closed by rulings or legislation."

More on:

• Contrary to the Mandelblit position: Ohana elected Attorney Orly Ben-Ari to the State Attorney General's Office

• Ben Ari's appointment: "The High Court's Intervention Complex is unlikely to overturn the decision"

• Civil Service Commissioner: "Appointment of Ben Ari to the State Attorney's Office may undermine the Attorney General's Office"

• IDF clarifies: We did not recommend Ben Ari

Mazuz did not settle for this, saying that when the minister or government comes up for a hearing and asks for his protection against the attorney general's baseless intuition, Mazuz violates his statement of allegiance, judging justice, not biasing a trial and no acquaintance. Instead, Mazuz announced that he "will be sensitive to the price of the judicial review" and will keep a guard on his counselor and intuition, even if he thinks the counselor is wrong, all for the benefit of the counsel's standing with government authorities.

Redheads preference

Imagine a situation where a judge will declare that, when it comes to hearing a redhead in front of a black-haired man, he has an automatic redhead preference. Were you ready to have a procedure before him?

Judge Mazuz's remarks were said generally and long ago, but to those who doubted his positions, a reminder was given very recently. About a month ago, Judge Mazuz appeared at the Haifa conference. He bothered to note that he would not deal with issues that would come to court and would not express his views on them. Still, to a question from the audience in which Minister Amir Ohana was defined as "throwing catastrophes" in the justice system, Mazuz replied "The situation of Minister of Justice for me is a problematic, disturbing, distressing situation" and defined Ohana's term as "making it difficult for the system".

The motion for quality of government against the Minister of Justice for the appointment of Attorney Orly Ben Ari as Deputy State Attorney landed on Justice Solberg's desk. Solberg, the clear-cut in Jerusalem, disqualified himself due to a close proximity to Deputy State Attorney Mommy Lamberger, who was not at all a party to the proceeding but the issue could indirectly affect his chances of appointment.

Of all the Supreme Court justices, the case was actually transferred to Justice Mazuz. You would think that in light of his grave statements in the past, Mazuz himself would feel unworthy to deal with the case, and, like Solberg, would disqualify himself and hand over the case to another judge.

Not only did Mazuz not do so, but he immediately issued a provisional order against the appointment, as if irreparable damage would be caused if a longtime attorney served on duty until the matter was clarified.

Mazuz must disqualify himself

Mazuz should also disqualify himself because, even as a legal advisor, he dealt with many of the State Attorney's nominations, and his views on the matter were fixed in a way that would prevent him from making decisions objectively. In comparison, Judge Rubinstein prevented himself from engaging in affairs in which he was acting as Attorney General, even many years after his term ended. In addition, Mazuz appointed Adv. Lamberger to a team that assisted him on the Greek island and worked closely with him for about a year and a half.

Section 77A of the Courts Law states that a judge must not sit in a court in circumstances that have a genuine fear of impartiality in the conduct of the trial. The parties coming up to the court should feel that the process is fair, that the judge listens to their arguments with open heart and soul and that the game is not an addict. The public watching from the side, too, must get this feeling, especially in a public and communicated case.

The fact that an incumbent judge criticizes a government minister and his policies is severe enough, and constitutes a violation of the law and the ethics rules of the judges. The minimum that can be expected is for a judge to recognize when he is unfit to stand trial.

If Judge Mazuz does not understand this himself, Minister Ohana must demand it. This is not Ohana's private matter. This is a procedure that deals with his public office, and as a public representative, he must demand that justice be done, and also be seen.

Adv. Simcha Rothman is the Attorney General of the Movement for Governance and Democracy. His book "The High Court Party - How the Attorneys Conquered Government in Israel" was published today