High Court rejects petition in Sde Teiman affair: Isman will be involved in the investigation
The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), rejected a petition regarding the investigation into the leak of materials in the Sde Teiman affair. The judges unanimously ruled that the court should not dictate investigative methods to the police, and the majority allowed the State Attorney to resume his involvement in the case.
The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), rejected today (Wednesday) the petition concerning the continued management of the investigation into the leak of materials in the Sde Teiman affair, thereby refusing to intervene in decisions regarding the manner in which the investigation is conducted. The three judges — President Isaac Amit and judges David Mintz and Khaled Kabub — determined unanimously that there is no place for the court to instruct the police on which investigative actions to perform.
On the other central dispute, the panel was divided: Amit and Kabub determined that the State Attorney is no longer prevented from accompanying the investigation and that the Minister of Justice should not be given additional time to appoint an inspector, while Mintz held in a minority opinion that the Minister should be ordered to explain why he is not appointing an external party to oversee it.
One of the central demands in the petition was that the court instruct the police to perform certain investigative actions and examine specific investigative directions in the affair of the leak of the video from the Sde Teiman facility. On this issue, there was no dispute between the judges. The Supreme Court rejected the request unanimously and determined that the role of the court is not to manage the criminal investigation itself or to replace the professional discretion of law enforcement agencies.
The court emphasized that it does not serve as an "investigating judge." Even when there is a sharp public and legal dispute surrounding the manner in which the investigation is conducted, the Supreme Court determined that this does not justify the judges dictating to the police which actions to perform or which directions to check.
The second significant issue was the status of the State Attorney. At the beginning of the affair, an opinion was given by the Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Justice according to which certain parties in the law enforcement system were prevented from handling the case. However, on February 3, 2026, the police reported that they had finished the investigative actions. After several factual completions were requested, on March 8 a new opinion was given, according to which the State Attorney was not involved in the relevant events and was not required to provide testimony, and therefore it was determined that he is no longer prevented from dealing with the investigation. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to intervene in this decision as well — but the majority opinion rejected their request.
President Isaac Amit, who wrote the central opinion, determined that the prevention established at the beginning was not supposed to last forever. According to him, when the facts change, it is possible to re-examine the need for prevention. The new opinion of the Legal Advisor to the Ministry of Justice relied on an "updated and sufficient factual infrastructure," based on the conclusions of the most senior officials in the Israel Police. Therefore, Amit and Kabub determined that there is no legal cause to intervene in the decision to remove the State Attorney's prevention.
The verdict also includes criticism of the timing of the petition and the conduct of the Minister of Justice. Amit noted that the claims regarding the need to appoint an inspector were raised after the investigation had already been conducted for months and had yielded conclusions that were not to the petitioners' liking. At the same time, the President mentioned that the Minister of Justice refrained for months from appointing an inspector who would meet the conditions set by the Supreme Court, and did not even utilize the possibility offered to him to turn to the court to request that the panel itself appoint the accompanying party.
The majority opinion warned that granting the Minister of Justice authority to delay the completion of the investigation until the appointment of an inspector of his choice might grant the Minister real power over a criminal investigation, which is inconsistent with the goal of preventing the politicization of criminal investigations.
Judge David Mintz disagreed with Amit and Kabub on this central point. In his opinion, the petition should be accepted partially and an order nisi should be issued instructing the Minister of Justice to explain why he is not exercising his authority and appointing an external party to oversee the investigation. Mintz emphasized that the affair deals with involvement attributed to the head of the law enforcement system in the IDF in the leaking of investigative materials, which requires an independent oversight mechanism free of the appearance of a conflict of interest.
