jerusalem | Now that Israeli State Attorney Edna Arbel and four of her colleagues have recommended the indictment of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, all eyes are on Israeli Attorney General Menahem Mazuz.
The focus of speculation is whether there will be any immediate government changes should Mazuz agree with Arbel and make the indictment official. Arbel says there is enough evidence for Sharon to be tried on whether he allegedly accepted a bribe from building contractor David Appel
Until now, Mazuz has worked largely behind the scenes and his approach to law enforcement, and specifically the subject of the allegations against Sharon, is not really known.
He is not in an easy position. If he decides to indict Sharon, he will jeopardize the political career of the man who received the largest mandate in history to govern the country. Mazuz, an unelected official, will be faced with the prospect not only of opening the way for deposing a prime minister, but of halting the direction of state policy so intrinsically linked to the man in question.
Mazuz is first and foremost a lawyer and has served for many years in the largely independent State Attorney’s Office. He doesn’t have close personal ties with government leaders and is likely to be more detached.
That is not the only factor that could determine Mazuz’s decision. All five prosecutors who studied the case agreed that Sharon should be charged. Even if Arbel is known to be a crusader against any expression of public corruption, it is a far more telling indication that the evidence against Sharon is serious when all four of her colleagues agree with her on this matter.
Nevertheless, Mazuz is not a newcomer to the Attorney General’s Office and it is unlikely that he will feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the opinion of the prosecutors. As Mazuz had already publicly declared, the final decision will be his and his alone.
What will happen if Mazuz does decide to indict Sharon? Until a few years ago, for want of a specific law dealing with the matter, a precedent had been established by the High Court of Justice. In September 1993, it ordered then-interior minister Aryeh Deri to resign from his portfolio after attorney general Yosef Harish decided to indict him on charges that included accepting a bribe.
The ruling came in response to a petition by the Israeli anti-corruption group Movement for Quality Government after Deri refused to leave his post voluntarily and then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin refused to fire him. Rabin argued that Deri’s immunity had not yet been lifted, it was not certain that he would stand trial and that he was innocent until proven guilty. But the court ruled that it was not proper that a person suspected of a crime involving moral turpitude hold such a high public office.
Several years later, the Knesset amended Israeli’s law to state to read, “the Knesset may, by an absolute majority, depose a prime minister who has been convicted of a crime and the court has determined that the crime involves moral turpitude.”
This means that a prime minister may continue to serve in office even after he is indicted, after the Knesset agrees to lift his immunity, and even after he is convicted in a lower court of a crime that involves moral turpitude. Only after all these conditions have been fulfilled, the Knesset may depose him if it wishes to do so.
Since the law stipulates that a prime minister must be tried in a district court, he is entitled to appeal the court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.
Until that appeal is heard and ruled upon, the legal procedure is not complete. Unless the Knesset decides otherwise, the prime minister may remain in office until the end of the entire procedure.
It is only after the entire procedure has been complete — that is, either after the prime minister decides not to appeal the district court decision, or he loses the appeal in the Supreme Court — that the law orders him and his cabinet to disperse.
Since the law is now clear on the question of how and when a prime minister must resign, it is unlikely that a watchdog body like Movement for Quality Government would stand a chance in the High Court of forcing Sharon out as a result of an indictment.
The wheels of justice grind slowly in Israel. Unless Sharon voluntarily steps down following a possible indictment, he will be able to govern for a long time — even if he does so under a dark cloud.