The Knesset filed a response with Israel's High Court of Justice on Sunday asking it to allow five frozen budget transfers to proceed, arguing that Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana acted within his authority when he authorized a Finance Committee meeting on August 4 during the parliamentary election recess. The court is scheduled to hear the case on Tuesday.
Knesset asks High Court to unfreeze five budget transfers blocked during election recess dispute
The Knesset filed a response with Israel's High Court of Justice on Sunday asking it to allow five frozen budget transfers to proceed, arguing that Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana acted within his authority when he authorized a Finance Committee meeting on August 4 during the parliamentary election recess. The court is scheduled to hear the case on Tuesday.
Justice Alex Stein temporarily halted nearly all the transfers on August 5, citing apparent problems with the way the committee had been convened. He allowed one allocation covering civilian emergency expenses to proceed and referred the case to a three-justice panel. The temporary order did not determine whether the meeting or the transfers were unlawful and remains in place unless the court lifts or changes it.
The petition was filed by the Hiddush religious-freedom organization and Democrats MK Naama Lazimi. They argue that the August 4 meeting breached special restrictions governing the Knesset during the election recess and allowed the coalition to approve politically sensitive spending less than three months before the October 27 election.
The Knesset entered its election recess on July 18, which is due to continue until the next Knesset is sworn in following the October election. The House Committee had approved rules permitting the Finance Committee to hold one meeting on budget transfers during the first two weeks of the recess, generally requiring four days' notice, though the speaker could shorten that period in urgent and exceptional circumstances.
The Finance Committee held its permitted meeting on July 29. According to the Knesset's response, 33 budget requests had been published before that meeting; the committee considered 23 by the time the sitting ended at 7:30 p.m. and approved 22. Finance Committee chairman MK Hanoch Milwidsky subsequently sought another meeting to address 13 requests that had not been considered and three requests for reconsideration.
Government ministries were asked to identify which transfers were urgent. The government ultimately prioritized six, and the Knesset's legal advisers concluded those six could be discussed given their stated importance and urgency. The Coordination Committee did not approve another meeting after opposition coordinator MK Merav Ben-Ari objected. Milwidsky then asked Ohana to authorize the meeting through a separate 'special cases' provision in Knesset rules.
Ohana accepted the legal advisers' position that the six transfers justified another meeting. He also shortened the required notice period from four days to three, despite the Knesset legal adviser's position that no reason had been given for departing from the four-day rule. The Finance Committee convened on August 4 and approved all six requests, over objections from opposition lawmakers who argued the meeting had been unlawfully called and that some spending was inconsistent with restraint expected during an election campaign.
The allocations covered a range of spending, including defense expenditure, school year preparations, salaries, payments to suppliers, summer education programs, and preventing the shutdown of rabbinical courts' computer systems. They also included coalition funds for religious and haredi education and programs connected to the National Missions Ministry. One Education Ministry request included approximately NIS 268 million in coalition allocations; other requests included NIS 125 million for the National Missions Ministry and approximately NIS 78 million for the Religious Services Ministry.
- The source does not state the total shekel value of all five frozen transfers combined.
- The source does not state the identities or positions of the three justices assigned to the panel.
- The source does not state Ohana's own public comments or reasoning beyond his acceptance of the legal advisers' position.
- The source does not state the specific legal or procedural grounds on which MK Ben-Ari objected to another Coordination Committee-approved meeting.
- The source does not state the outcome or details of the three Finance Committee meetings authorized by the speaker during the 2022 election recess cited as precedent.
- The source does not state the positions of the government ministries whose transfers are at issue beyond their identification of urgency.
Read the original at The Jerusalem Post