The High Court of Justice heard on Monday a petition that could redefine the limits of parliamentary oversight in issues of security, detention, and ministerial discretion.
The petition, filed by Hadash-Ta’al MK Ahmad Tibi together with the legal aid group Adalah, argued that the MK had been unfairly denied the right to visit Palestinian security prisoners – under a policy issued by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) and the Israel Prison Service (IPS).
In the hearing, Adalah director Hassan Jabareen argued that this blanket policy lacks any explicit statutory basis, effectively allowing Ben-Gvir and prison authorities to veto a sitting MK’s inspection rights.
He further claimed the refusal to permit Tibi’s visits – including to high-profile inmate Marwan Barghouti – impairs the Knesset’s proper function of oversight, and treats Arab MKs differently from Jewish coalition members who have reportedly been granted access to Israeli-Jewish security prisoners.
On the other side, the state defended its policy as a necessary response to security concerns. State representatives maintained that Palestinian security prisoners are part of a distinct category, and that visits by lawmakers may facilitate propaganda or risk incitement – justifying Ben-Gvir’s discretion in restricting access.
The state also argued that the circumstances of Jewish-Israeli security prisoners are not comparable, and that the court should defer to the executive’s assessment of risks in this sensitive field.
Legal questions behind HCJ hearing
The legal questions before the court are broad and could have far-reaching implications: to what degree may an MK exercise oversight in a prison context when detainees are classified as security prisoners? Is equal treatment of all MKs a legal requirement even when security considerations are advanced? How much factual specificity is required from the state when it invokes national‑security rationales for denying oversight access?
The petitioners previously pointed out that while the state produced classified materials in support of its case, nothing in the disclosed summaries identifies a concrete threat posed by Tibi himself – a fact they said undermines the claimed justification for the exclusion.
This raises the prospect that the court may be asked to determine whether abstract security concerns suffice to limit the rights of elected representatives.
The court issued an order last July requiring the state to respond to the petition, which was filed in April 2024.
No ruling was delivered on Monday, as the matter remains under judicial review, and further phases of argument or interim orders may follow.