The High Court of Justice will hold an additional hearing on the case of the investigation into the Sde Teiman video leak, narrowed to the fundamental question of and limitations on ministerial authority - specifically that of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
On Wednesday night, the court unanimously annulled Levin's second appointment to lead the investigation, Josefh Ben-Hamo. A few weeks ago, the court imposed limitations on who could lead it; it ruled on Wednesday that Levin exceeded the limitations set in law and had ignored explicit legal constraints.
The court will convene an expanded 11-justice panel to reexamine the legal principles underlying the dispute. Supreme Court President Isaac Amit wrote on Thursday that the hearing will focus on two major issues: the scope of the justice minister’s legal appointment powers, and whether a general or systemic conflict-of-interest doctrine applies when a minister becomes entangled in a concrete criminal investigation.
Amit stressed that the new hearing will examine only the principles - not the specific events of the Sde Teiman case. Amit wrote that while additional hearings are usually limited to issues still “live” for the parties, the profound constitutional implications of the ministerial-authority questions justify making an exception.
To ensure coherence across related rulings, the court also noted the relevance of its previous judgment, which sharply limited Levin’s ability to intervene in matters involving criminal investigations of the judicial system.
Ordinarily, criminal investigations in Israel are handled entirely within the professional echelon: the police, the prosecution, and - when sensitive or high-level matters arise - the attorney-general acts as the sole legal gatekeeper. Ministers do not appoint figures to “accompany” or supervise live criminal probes.
That firewall is foundational: It is designed to preserve investigative independence, prevent political interference, and ensure that the government - whose members may themselves be implicated - cannot influence the course of a criminal inquiry.
The unusual circumstances behind Israel's Sde Teiman case
The Sde Teiman case, however, emerged in highly unusual circumstances. Because the investigation concerns alleged misconduct by IDF reservists against a Palestinian detainee - misconduct that occurred inside a military facility and was exposed only after the leaked video - Levin argued that he, as justice minister, had special authority to appoint an external figure to “accompany” the investigation. The Attorney-General’s Office forcefully rejected that interpretation, insisting that the statute does not empower the minister to insert a political appointee into the chain of criminal decision-making.
This clash - over a statute rarely invoked in the context of criminal investigations - is what made the court’s intervention so significant. In its earlier ruling and again on Wednesday, the court found that Levin’s reading strayed far beyond its text and purpose. It ruled that the minister cannot appoint someone who has previously served as a judge in an adjudicative capacity or whose independence might reasonably be questioned. Ben-Hamo, the court said, met both disqualifying criteria, making his appointment unlawful.
The additional hearing will not revisit those factual conclusions but will rather seek to establish a clear rule for future disputes: What, if anything, is the justice minister permitted to do when a criminal investigation implicates judicial or quasi-judicial actors? And can a minister, found personally to be in a conflict of interest, still exercise procedural rights - such as requesting a rehearing - without being barred from the legal process?
Amit emphasized that procedural rights cannot be stripped merely because a minister was found to be acting in a conflict of interest, rejecting Levin’s attempt to dismiss the attorney-general’s rehearing petition on that basis. Denying such rights, Amit wrote, would mean that any party deemed conflicted would automatically lose access to legal avenues designed precisely to challenge such determinations.
Written arguments from petitioners are due on January 4, with Levin’s response due a month later. The expanded panel - comprising the entire top echelon of the Supreme Court - will hear the case in the first half of 2026.
The decision marks another escalation in the ongoing confrontation between Levin and the judicial system, placing at the center of the dispute not merely the fate of the Sde Teiman investigation and its ripple effects, but the broader question of whether a minister may play any role at all in shaping or overseeing criminal probes.