And back to our matter. I will reiterate that the case at hand is this time The first was in which a minister requested to convene the Appointments Committee for the purpose of terminating the term of a senior officer during his fixed term. In view of the sensitivity of the issue, as I discussed at length above, there was nothing wrong with the degree of caution taken by the Legal Advisor to the Government in addressing the issues before us.
- As to the grounds for termination of the term, which deals with "the existence of a severe and ongoing crisis of confidence", I am not clear about my colleague's approach. As he himself notes, this issue was already raised in the proceeding that is the subject of the additional hearing - both in the pleadings submitted on behalf of the parties, in the focus dictated by the order nisi granted, and in the positions of two members of the original panel who disagreed in their opinions. All this, even taking into account the contradictions I noted in the judge's comments Elron, and between previous rulings in case law. This issue Anonymous It was excluded in my decision to hold an additional hearing and was directly mentioned in the Applicants' arguments. On the contrary, since we have convened in an expanded panel, I am of the opinion that both considerations of procedural efficiency, as well as considerations that go to the root of the Supreme Court's role, require that this issue be addressed in order to provide legal certainty. It is not superfluous to note that the question of the interpretation of the grounds for termination of this term, as determined in Resolution 4062 - which is the relevant law in our case - is a legal question, in respect of which the Appointments Committee has no inherent advantage over the Court, which is the authorized interpreter of the law (see and compare: High Court of Justice 4386/16 Tesfahiot Mediu v. Prisons Commission, paragraph 89 [Nevo] (13.6.2017); 77"m 2503/13 Zohar v. Jerusalem Municipality, paragraph 38 [Nevo] (February 4,2015)). This is in contrast to practical questions relating to the examination of the existence of the cause of action in concrete circumstances, which, as a rule, should be clarified first by the Committee.
In any event, and despite the choice of the members of the panel to "sit on the fence" and not to take a position, the other members of the panel found it necessary to address the issue and joined the objective approach described above. Therefore, these words constitute a binding rule, which will continue to develop in the future as needed.