Composition of the investigation committee and request for pardon: Another battle in the coup

By: Muhammad Yahya

Who will ensure that there will be an objective, professional committee when the people being investigated choose the investigators who will investigate them?

The controversy over the establishment of a state investigation committee to examine the events of October 7 is sparking political discourse and legal debate from the home of the revolutionary government, which is leaving no stone unturned to stoke the flames of the coup d'état.

State or government, instead of a substantive investigation.

This is an unsurprising breach of convention on the part of the government and its leader.

It is customary and agreed that a public committee will be established by virtue of the Committees of Inquiry Law, by decision of the Government of Israel or by decision of the Knesset's State Audit Committee, or by appointment by the President of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of in-depth investigation of an issue that is at the center of the public agenda, such as the events of October 7.

The government can order the appointment of a state commission of inquiry at any time.

The question at hand is whether the government can interfere in the appointment of the composition of the investigative committee? Is this legal, and if so, is it healthy for the governmental system, and contributes to public trust and the shaping of democracy?

The political system's ability to subject the elected and appointed echelon to critical scrutiny by an external body indicates democratic resilience.

The broad powers of the investigative committees and their professional composition ensure a thorough, objective, and comprehensive investigation.

The investigative committees established in the past contributed to shaping the political culture and the public accountability of elected officials and officials. The investigative committees that dealt with the relations between the military and political echelons (the Agranat Committee established following the Yom Kippur War, the Cohen Committee that investigated the Sabra and Shatila massacre, the Landau Committee that investigated the Shin Bet's interrogation methods) contributed to a certain extent to regulating the relations between the echelons and clarifying the areas of responsibility. For example, following the publication of the Agranat Committee's conclusions, the Knesset enacted an amendment to the Basic Law that clarified that the military is subject to the authority of the entire government.

The test of democracy is now becoming more severe in the fight against the coup in an election year.

The constitutional rift over the dismissal of the legal advisor to the government and the High Court decision and the composition of the investigative committee do not add to public trust. And a pardon will not help either.