Law Initiative of the Knesset: Re-establishment of the Immunity of Member of Knesset (MK)

Israel recognizes the right of immunity of elected representatives of the people. In principle. However, this urgently needs to be tightened up, as the deep state is increasingly showing itself to be abusive towards MPs and members of the government. In every democracy, a quorum is required to lift the immunity of an elected representative.

Once it was the standard in that way in Israel. Section 1 of the Knesset Members’ Immunity, Rights and Duties Law, 1951, established in clear words the absolute immunity for a Member of Knesset from a criminal or civil proceeding due to an action or statement made within the fulfilment of his duties or for the purpose of fulfilment of his duties.

However, the courts, over the years, have allowed lawsuits to be filed against the Members of Knesset, and the question of immunity is de facto determined by the court. Immunity derailed more and more. It all began in the year 2005 as the ‘Disengagement’ took place.

International democratic standards are: No court, police or other state authority is permitted to conduct investigations against a member of the government or parliament on its own initiative without the consent of parliament. This is the gold standard in every democracy.

If this were not the case, we would have endless lawfare, which has unfortunately become increasingly common, where an uncontrolled deep state is persecuting the elected representatives of the people. No court or police should have any authority over an elected representative unless the government and parliament agree.

Against this background, Tali Gottliv’s (Likud) legislative initiative must be highly welcomed. It improves democratic standards.

Immunity Reloaded

“It is proposed that a criminal proceeding will not be launched against a Member of Knesset and a court will not hear a civil suit against a Member of Knesset, unless the Knesset has determined, by a majority of 90 Members of Knesset, that the action for which the investigation was requested or the lawsuit was filed was not performed within the fulfilment of the Member of Knesset’s duties.” (quote out of the press release of the Knesset/5.12.2024)

Today the legal frame is unsustainable and not reasonable. It curtails in effect the Sovereign aka the Parliament: “On the matter of a civil proceeding, as of today, if the Member of Knesset believes that that the actions specified in the suit filed against him were performed within the fulfilment of his duties or for the purpose of fulfilment of his duties—he can raise a claim of immunity in court, and if the court accepts it, the proceeding will be stopped.

Under the proposed bill, it will not be possible to launch a civil proceeding against a Member of the Knesset, unless 90 Members of the Knesset have determined that the action was not performed within the fulfilment of his duties. In the absence of a decision by 90 Members of the Knesset, it will be effectively impossible to conduct a civil proceeding against Members of the Knesset.” (quote out of the press release of the Knesset/5.12.2024)

The proposed bill returns the power to decide on prosecution to the Members of the Knesset – after it was de facto repealed in an amendment to the law in 2005. The year of the ‘Disengagement’ – which stipulates that 90 Members of the Knesset will be required to determine that a criminal investigation or prosecution is possible at all.

Minister of Justice MK Yariv Levin (Likud) noted: “This is a relevant issue that should trouble Members of Knesset from all sides of the political spectrum, and particularly those who are at the far ends of the political spectrum, from both sides of the House, because it is often easier to restrict their actions.

This is a bill in raw form, and it requires in-depth examination and deliberation and significant adjustments, but it is designed to point at an untenable situation that is dangerous for democracy, in which the freedom of action of Members of Knesset and elected officials is restricted in an arbitrary and growing manner, which will ultimately harm everyone here.
 
Immunity is, in substance, not a personal matter of the Member of Knesset but rather institutional. The immunity is designed to protect the Knesset from the justice system and the law enforcement system.

The absurd situation that is taking root, according to which the last word on the immunity issue is given to the courts undermines the whole idea of immunity. Immunity should remain in the hands of the institution because it is intended to protect the Knesset from the other systems, otherwise what sense does it make?” said Minister MK Levin.

On this point, one can only fully agree with Minister Levin. Those are the democratic standards. Qualified immunity. We, the people.

PIC AI-Generated. Symbolic.