Supreme Court Annuls Controversial Appointments to Second Authority Council
The Israeli Supreme Court unanimously annulled the government's appointment of Dr. Yifat Ben-Chai Segev as Second Authority chair and two members, citing conflict of interest and lack of factual basis regarding public bias against media outlets.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday to annul the government's decision appointing Dr. Yifat Ben-Chai Segev as chair of the Second Authority for Television and Radio council, alongside attorney Kineret Barashi and Dr. Haim Schein as council members.
The dramatic ruling was handed down as part of a series of petitions filed against the government's March 2026 decision to appoint 15 new members to the council—the primary regulatory body overseeing broadcast channels 12, 13, and 14, as well as regional radio stations. Petitioners, later joined by the Attorney General, argued that the appointments were rushed without factual basis, aiming to thwart the acquisition deal of Reshet 13.
Conflict of Interest and Prime Minister's Involvement
At the center of the verdict, written by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, was Ben-Chai Segev's suitability for the chair position, given her status as a witness (declared a hostile witness) in Case 4000 of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criminal trial.
«The arrangement is designed to prevent even the appearance of granting a 'benefit' to a witness for their testimony after the testimony has concluded,» President Amit clarified.
The judges were also unimpressed by a revote conducted by the government, in which Netanyahu left the room and the appointment was approved «to prevent gossip.» The court ruled this procedure failed to cure the deep administrative defect.
Criticism of Public Statements by Appointees
Regarding Kineret Barashi and Haim Schein, the Supreme Court severely criticized the appointments committee's handling. Petitioners argued the two frequently make blunt, biased, and systematic public remarks against the major media outlets they are meant to oversee.
President Amit accepted the petitioners' stance, ruling that harsh public statements by candidates for a regulatory body with extensive oversight powers constitute a relevant factor that the committee must consider due to fears of bias. Consequently, the court annulled the government decisions and returned the matters to the appointments committee for re-evaluation.
