A day after the Speaker of the Knesset, attorney Sagit Afik, responded to the Speakers' Bill of the Chairman of the Constitution Committee, Simcha Rothman (Tadith Zionism) - Rothman was not obliged and today responded in his own letter.
The version of the ombudsmen's law that Rothman distributed to her friends was not well received by Adv. Afik.
Yesterday (Wednesday) following Rothman's move, she sent a response letter to the members of the committee in which she made it clear to them that Rothman does not reflect the current legal situation in the State of Israel and he is not authorized to give legal advice.
In other words: the letter is a misrepresentation.
Afik claimed that the proposal for Rothman's discussion on amending the Basic Law: The Government and the determination that the opinion of the ombudsmen would be advisory only and not binding - does not represent the legal reality in Israel.
In her letter, Afik wrote: "Although the chairman of a committee in the Knesset has extensive powers, they do not include providing legal advice to the members of the committee.
The role of providing comprehensive and unbiased legal advice is assigned to the Knesset's legal advice.
Speaker of the Knesset, attorney Sagit Afik, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
She added: "When the chairman of the committee holds the discussions with the aim of formulating a bill on behalf of a committee, it is extremely important to bring objective, complete and accurate legal information for the members of the committee.
The appropriate route for making legislative amendments of this type is by way of submitting a private bill."
Rothman: "She said the obvious"
Today (Thursday) Rothman hastened to send a response letter to Apik, in which he wrote: "Your clarification was unnecessary."
And he added: "The legal advisor said the obvious. Anyone who read the document saw in bold letters that the document was on behalf of the chairman of the committee and not on behalf of the committee's legal counsel.
The document is not even similar in any of its external and design characteristics to a document prepared on behalf of the legal advice to the committee, therefore the necessity of the clarification letter is not clear.
"However, I am of course happy about the further clarification of the obvious in the legal advisor's letter, according to which 'the chairman of the committee may present to the members of the committee a platform for discussion as he deems appropriate.'
I certainly expect the legal counsel for the Knesset and the committee to also present their position and opinion on their behalf in the most professional and objective manner throughout the committee's deliberations, in accordance with their abilities."
"Israel Hayom" learned that behind the scenes the legal advisor of the Constitutional Committee was angry that Rothman bypassed him and sent an opinion on the law prepared by an external legal advisor.
This, among other things, is part of the background to the Knesset Speaker's letter against Rothman.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us