However, When a person wishes to be appointed to public office, The question arises as to the weight of his statements in examining his suitability for the position.  The National Labor Court Required for a sugya and a number, in a list that is not closed, Four Categories of Statements that should be brought in mindN - It should be noted that the context and role in relation to which the matter was determined is indeed different from our case, but the main points are acceptable to me in relation to any public position, and are in accordance with the spirit of the halakha established in the matter Lavi (See: Employment Appeal ‏(‏National‏)‏ 35640-07-15 Debussy - The Tenders Committee for the Selection of Senior Employees in the Lod Municipality, paragraph 24 ‏(‏13.7.2016‏)): (1) Statements that constitute a criminal offense - Statements that amount to a criminal offense, such as various incitement offenses.  The appointing body must take these statements into account, even if no criminal or disciplinary proceedings have been taken against the candidate; (2) Serious statements in terms of The content of the phrase - It is not enough that the statement arouses resentment or public controversy, Even if it's hard.  It is required that its software be exceptional in its severity, Humiliating, Degrades or substantially violates human dignity.  This, Even if the words were said in a sensible and pleasant manner.  Examining these expressions requires a balance between freedom of expression and between Public Trust in the Public Service; (3) Serious statements in terms of the manner of expression - Statements made in a violent manner, Aggressive, Exceptionally blunt, Humiliating or degrading; (4) Statements that may affect the candidate's ability to perform the job - Statements that raise a real concern that the candidate will not be able to perform his or her duties properly, Efficient, Matter-of-fact, Inquiry-Free and fit.  This includes, Statements that may harm labor relations, In cooperation or in contact with the public in need of the service.

119. Interim Summary: The decision of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments is required to be made on the basis of a solid factual basis, one that relies on all the relevant data. In this framework, a candidate's statements may constitute relevant data for examining his or her suitability and suitability for public office, especially where they give rise to a concern of bias or difficulty in exercising his or her powers in a substantive and egalitarian manner.

Equipped with these insights, we will turn to apply them to the circumstances of the case.

From the General to the Individual: The Decision of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments

120. As may be recalled, in our case, it was argued in essence that before the Committee for the Examination of Appointments, all the material data relevant to the examination of the candidacy of Dr. Ben Hai-Segev, Adv. Barashi and Dr.  Shine were present.
121. As stated above, the factual basis necessary for the decision of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments in Circumstances must take into account the nature of the position at stake - serving on the Council of the Second Authority. At this point, it should be noted that as the regulator in charge of commercial broadcasting, the Council of the Second Authority has a real influence on the various broadcasting organizations, and in particular on the news companies on Channels 12 and 13 (Channels 14 and i24Newsare exempt from the obligation to establish a news company - Channel 14 is exempt from the obligation in view of its definition in the law as a "micro-licensee" (section 71H of the Law), while the i24News channel is not subject to the supervision of the Second Authority).  In this context, it should be noted that in accordance with the license set for Channel 12 News, the Council is entitled to revoke, restrict or reduce the license (Appendix 3 to the Channel 12 Channel Petition, in section 42.6); It should also be noted that the Council is entitled to take broadcast time fromthe news companies as well as to impose financial sanctions and fines on them (see, for example, ibid., in paragraphs 43-45).
122. Thus, the Council of the Second Authority is given broad supervisory powers that go to the root of the activity of the news companies. In light of these powers, harsh and repeated public statements by candidates for office on the Council of the Second Authority against bodies that they are to supervise, are a relevant fact that must be considered by the Committee in order to formulate a decision regarding the examination of their candidacy for office as a member of the Council.  This is especially so in light of the provision of Section 18B(c)(3) of the Government Companies Law, which stipulates that the committee must advise on "the degree of suitability of the candidate for the position, taking into account, inter alia, the special needs of the company [the Council ]" (see also: Procedure of the Public Committee for the Examination of Appointments under the Government Companies Law "Procedure for the Appointment of Officers for Government Companies and Public Corporations" (February 2011)).  The Council, like any other regulator, is subject to all the duties imposed on any administrative authority, including the duty to act in good faith, fairness and impartiality (Additional Civil Hearing 4960/18 Seligman v.  Phoenix Insurance Company Ltd., paragraph 65 of the judgment of Deputy President (Ret.)   Melcer (July 4,2021)).

Against this background, and as will be detailed below, it appears that there was a flaw in the decision of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments in our case, given the fact that relevant data was not brought before it, and in any case could not have been examined by it.  It should be noted that the Attorney General's response was accompanied by an affidavit on behalf of the Director of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments, which verifies the facts relating to the nature of the factual basis that was laid before the Committee, and clarifies that after an examination with the Committee, the data detailed below were not brought before it and therefore were not even examined by her.  It should also be noted that during the discussion we held in the proceeding, counsel for the Counsel emphasized that she also represented the Committee in the proceeding (p.  36 of the minutes of the hearing of June 16,2026), so that the things clarified on behalf of the Advisor are also said on behalf of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments.

123. With regard to Adv. Barashi's case, the committee was unaware, and as a result, did not examine the significance of its various public statements against supervised bodies. Statements such as: "The only people who committed war crimes are journalists, you slandered the country, you endangered IDF soldiers and you intensified anti-Semitism, all of these together caused attacks against Jews around the world [...]; "You (News 13) broadcast like Jihad"; "A blood libel against Jews is (also) coming out of Neve Ilan - Channel 12 [...] and Channel 13, two political parties [...] ".  As stated, there is no dispute that Adv. Barashi is entitled to make these statements as a private person and to express her opinion publicly, and even though this is a very harsh and blatant criticism, and some will say that it even borders on incitement, she is protected under her right to freedom of expression.  However, when it comes to running for the position at hand, the content of Ya's statements is not weightless, since we are dealing with very harsh statements that relate directly to bodies that are expected to be subject to the Council's supervision (compare: Army Radio, at paragraphs 61-62; Ben David, at p.  666).  It should be clarified: I do not express a position on the question of whether these statements, in and of themselves, negate Adv. Barashi's tenure as a council member.  This issue must be decided first and foremost by the committee.  However, it is clear that these statements are liable to project and have implications for the degree of suitability of Adv. Barashi for the position, and therefore the Committee for the Examination of Appointments could not have made its decision without asking them to examine her candidacy.

Added to this is the fact that, on the face of it, and without setting rivets, the statements attributed to the"4 In my head, she also radiates the question of her political affiliation, especially in her resume - The main document in which the candidate testifies about himself and the skills he considers relevant - It was explicitly stated that from 2010 until today, "4 In my head serves as"Communication Consultant and Shadow Consultant For senior officials in Israeli politics and industry" [emphasis in original] - J"A].  Indeed, and as emerges from the opinion of the Legal Counsel to the Ministry of Communications, in response to this figure, A."4 In my head, "It has not and has had no business or political relationship with a government minister or the prime minister".  But this answer raises questions, at the very least, in light of what is stated in her resume - This is because the committee did not act to exhaust their clarification.  Thus, the committee was not asked which senior figures in Israeli politics Yes Consulted"I am not required to understand the significance of this factual detail in view of the additional data (which were not placed before it and examined by it as stated above).  The aforesaid statements of A."D.  In my head, I am required to be examined even in light of the fact that in her resume she mentioned"In my head, in 2021, the company established the "The Open Online Studio" Active to date and"Reflecting to the public what is happening in the thousands of cases in the Jerusalem District Court.  The disclosure of the minutes daily Discussions and commentary, the project that changed the public discourse and exposed many audiences to information that was not disclosed in the commercial media".  The Committee was not required to address this figure as well, and as the Attorney General noted to us during the hearing, the issue of the significance of the operation of a YouTube channel of this type was not even examined by the Legal Advisor to the Government.

124. From a broader perspective, the question of whether the operation of a private media channel that openly supports a particular politician establishes a political affiliation in the sense of the Government Companies Law is a complex question, which must be addressed by the various professional bodies. It seems that at the time of the enactment of Amendment No. 6 to the Government Companies Law, in the framework of which the Committee for the Examination of Appointments was regulated, the legislature did not foresee such a possibility.  The term "political affiliation" mainly referred to a candidate's ability to influence the re-election of a government minister by financing an election campaign, the ability to influence a party center or membership in a party electorate and alternatively vote contractors (Minutes of the 55th Session of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, 18-22,13 Knesset (1.    1993)).  However, this is not a closed list of characteristics that create a political affinity (see also: Directive 6.5000, at pp.  39-40).  The legislature is not required to address the question of the ability to influence the election of a minister in other ways.  Accordingly, in circumstances in which the media channel operated by the candidate has great and powerful exposure, the question arises as to whether this is not a case in which the candidate has an influence on the ability of the political entity to be re-elected.  In light of this, the committee must address the contents of Adv. Barashi's resume, in view of the possibility that Adv. Barashi has a political affiliation with a government minister.  It should be emphasized that the existence of a political affiliation does not necessarily mean the denial of the candidacy of one candidate or another, but that after the committee is aware of the existence of such an affiliation, it must continue to examine whether the candidate has "special skills" that justify his appointment despite the affiliation ( section 18C of the Government Companies Law, see, for example, in the case of the High Court of Justice 932/99 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v.  Chairman of the Committee for the Examination of Appointments, IsrSC 35(3) 769,784-780 (1999)).
125. Similarly, in the case of Dr. Shine, the committee was not called upon to make his harsh remarks directed against bodies supervised by the Council.  Thus, for example, as appears from the material placed before us, Dr.  Shine noted in the past, inter alia, that "the public is fed up with all the channels that remind it of Al Jazeera and these depressive channels that are constantly criticizing, all the time destroying the very foundation of our existence here"; He also noted in the past that he was "looking for a lawyer specializing in media law in order to examine the filing of a huge lawsuit against the channels that worked to engineer consciousness and skew the results of the elections." He even declared that "the fake media was recruited by Order 8 in order to overthrow the right-wing government.  Drucker and his many friends, night after night, are not trying at all to promote an idea, a path or a vision, their sole purpose is to give expression to obsessive, psychopathological hatred, which is summarized in the slogan 'Just not Bibi.'" Admittedly, it is not impossible that Dr.  Shine's statements, as well as those of Adv. Barashi, reflect a prevailing opinion among certain sections of the public (see in this regard the provision of section 7(b) of the Second Authority Law).  However, this does not detract from the need to examine whether these statements - particularly in terms of their nature and scope - have an impact on the ability of a particular candidate to fill the position in a professional and impartial manner, all out of recognition of the unique characteristics required by the Council's regulatory-enforcement role.  Thus, in our case, it cannot be ignored that Dr.  Shine's statements have implications for the degree to which he is suitable for the position of a council member, given that those bodies that according to him "destroy the foundation of our being" will be under his supervision and that in their matter he will have to make decisions with an open heart and a willing soul.  Therefore, this is a relevant fact that the Appointments Review Committee should have addressed and examined its significance.
126. In this regard, it should be noted that Adv. Barashi and Dr. Shine did not deny the statements attributed to them, or had reservations about them.  Moreover, the government also did not claim that the matter was brought to its attention or examined by the Appointments Review Committee.  All that has been argued in this context is that the disqualification of their candidacy, under these circumstances, constitutes a serious violation of the freedom of expression of citizens, and that in accordance with American rulings, a regulator should not be disqualified for expressing a prior opinion on the issue.  In this context, it should be emphasized that at this stage we are not determining anything as to the concrete implications of the statements on the appointment itself or on the need to determine possible terms or term limits that will be determined after the committee's examination.  At this stage, our determination is summarized in the fact that in examining the candidacy of Adv. Barashi and Dr.  Shine, their harsh and repeated statements against the supervised bodies are a relevant fact that must be addressed in its significance, given the obligation imposed on the committee to examine the suitability of the candidates for the position in view of the importance and breadth of the influence of the Council's functions.
127. In this context, and with a forward-looking perspective, a difficulty may sometimes arise in the question of how to collect data relevant to the decision of the Appointments Review Committee. For the most part, the question of whether the administrative authority met its obligation to gather a sufficient factual basis is examined in view of the data that could have been collected at the time its decision was made.  Inthis case, not every late application to the Authority, which includes additional data that was not available to it in the first place, justifies in itself a re-examination of the decision.  The need for such an examination is derived, inter alia, from the nature and weight of the data.  Accordingly, in appropriate cases, when new material data are brought before the relevant party that have implications for the nature of the question under discussion, there may be an obligation to re-examine the decision in light of them (see, for example, Barak-Erez, at p.  443).  Similarly, a late change of circumstances may, in appropriate cases, require a reconsideration of the administrative decision made on the basis of the facts that preceded the change (compare: High Court of Justice 7177/04 Rosen v.  Attorney General, IsrSC 59(3) 865,871 (2004)).  Admittedly, Directive 6.5000 imposes on the candidate the obligation to fully and adequately reflect in the framework of the questionnaire submitted to the committee all the relevant information relating to the matter (ibid., at p.  44).  However, in light of the proceeding before us, and with a forward-looking perspective, it is suggested that the relevant parties should address the issue of the manner in which the materials were collected by the committee, including whether in appropriate cases - in view of the position being examined or the candidate being examined - there is room to create the possibility of receiving information or comments from the public, prior to making the decision.  I will mention that in our case, inquiries from Channel 12 News and the Journalists' Association were submitted to the committee during the month of February 2026, i.e., after the committee's decision, but before the government's decisions regarding the appointment were given.
128. As to the infrastructure laid before the committee with regard to the appointment of Dr. Ben Hai-Segev.  In this context, it was argued, in essence, that the committee did not have data relating to its bias towards Channel 12 News, inter alia, against the background of a defamation lawsuit, in light of the dispute regarding the tender process of the Knesset Channel and its membership in the "Massad Haaretz" research institute.  Various arguments were also raised regarding the nature of the restrictions set for it in the committee's decision, in the sense that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev was given a shorter and limited cooling-off period than that set by the legal counsel to the Ministry of Communications.

First of all, it should be noted that I do not believe that the dispute between the"R.  Ben Hai-Segev and Channel 12 News regarding the Knesset Channel tender is a relevant figure in the circumstances of the case.  As may be recalled, this is a dispute that stems from the petitioners' claim that News 12 petitioned against the decision of the Tenders Committee"R.  Ben Hai-Segev was its chairperson - A decision made sometime in May 2017 (see: Matter Knesset Channel, in paragraph 4).  The obvious must be said: the fact that Channel 12 News has filed a petition against this decision in the past does not in itself indicate anything about D.'s alleged bias"R.  Ben Chai-Segev, and does not affect the question of the suitability of D."R.  Ben Chai-Segev to the Priesthood"The Council.  The same is true with regard to the course of the proceeding itself and the manner in which it ended.  Hence, this is not relevant information for the purpose of the committee's decision, and therefore - that there was no defect in the fact that the Committee for the Examination of Appointments did not require it.  In addition, I did not find that the Petitioners' arguments regarding the Committee's determinations regarding the duration and scope of the cooling-off period set for the"R.  Ben Hai-Segev.  Indeed, in the circumstances in which a certain arrangement was established in the opinion of the legal counsel to the Ministry of Communications, there was room for the committee to at least explain its choice to deviate from this arrangement.  However, since this is an issue that is at the core of the committee's discretion and in any case I have reached the conclusion that it is appropriate for the committee to address the issue a second time, I did not see fit to set a conclusion on this matter.

129. I also did not see fit to set a precedent as to the meaning of a defamation suit. This is because, as I will detail below, in the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev there was a flaw in the third link of the administrative proceeding, which is the government's decisions.  However, it is not possible to ignore the difficulties that arise from the defamation lawsuit against a media channel that it is supposed to supervise.  In this case, too, it is necessary to clarify the obvious: the filing and management of the lawsuit should not in itself be attributed to Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, since according to her, her only desire was to protect her good name.  However, it is difficult to ignore the various allegations that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev raised in the framework of a defamation lawsuit against Channel 12, and the fact that these claims were raised recently.  Thus, for example, in the affidavit of the main witness on her behalf in the defamation lawsuit, dated November 3,2024, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev claimed that "the senior members of Channel 12 have a hostility towards me" (ibid., at paragraph 22).  In addition, on June 4,2025, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev testified in a defamation lawsuit, responding to the words of News 12's counsel the following: "And I also want to suggest to you that the reason I sued News 12 is because News 12 is the leading media organization in the State of Israel.  [...] The body that sets the agenda in the State of Israel, which creates all the dynamics in the media and is responsible for a very long, unceasing chain that continues to this day, of harming my name and my good name" (p.  46 of the minutes of the defamation lawsuit hearing of June 4,2025).  I am aware of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev's argument that these statements do not necessarily indicate the way in which she perceives Channel 12, but only the way in which Channel 12 News perceives her, and therefore she claims that her words do not indicate that she is disillusioned with Channel 12.  However, on the face of it, the fact that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev has only recently made statements of this kind about one of the main bodies subject to the Council's scrutiny, is relevant to the question of her suitability to serve on the Council, which at least should have been taken into account by the Committee as part of its considerations.  This is all the more so since her candidacy was examined for the position of Chairperson, who holds special powers (see, for example: sections 16(b), 17(c), and 26(b)(2) of the Second Authority Law).  As stated, given the above, I have not found any need to plant nails on this issue as well.  Similarly, I am not required to answer the question of the significance of her membership and the cessation of her activity as a research fellow at the "Massad Haaretz" research institute.

Third Link: Government Decisions

130. At the beginning of this section, which focuses on the third link of the administrative process, it should be noted that in a situation where the committee's decision was based on a lack of infrastructure, the defect also adheres to the government's decisions that followed, since in the absence of a full examination, the government's ability to rely on the committee's work is impaired (the Almakais case, at paragraph 61 of the judgment of Justice Grosskopf; High Court of Justice 5538/09 Peleg v. Civil Service Commission, para.  14 (July 6,2010)).  In this context, I will also note that Directive 6.5000 instructs ministers that "when they come to make a decision regarding the appointment, they must make sure as much as possible that the information before them is complete, true and correct, and at the very least that the candidate's questionnaire is meticulously filled" (ibid., at p.  43).
131. As if that were not enough, the petitioners raise additional arguments regarding flaws in the government's decisions themselves. Thus, it was argued that the government's decisions were made in an irregular proceeding, without the government being presented with an appropriate legal opinion, with the participation of the prime minister, despite the conflict of interest in which he was involved, given that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev was a witness at his trial.  It was also argued that the government's decision to revote does not cure this flaw.  On the other hand, the government maintains that its decisions were based on the opinion of the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications; that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev's testimony in the prime minister's trial was over, and therefore the prime minister is entitled to deal with her matter; and that in any case, the government's decision to revote was given in his absence, and therefore even if there was a flaw in the government's decision, he is a doctor.

I will first discuss the arguments that focus on the working order of the government.

132. By virtue of Section 31(f) of the Basic Law: The Government, the governments of Israel determine the regulations for their work, which is the bylaws of the government. Although every government is required to approve its bylaws, and changes are made to them from time to time, the wording of many provisions has been preserved over the years and has been passed from one statute to another (AAA 452/21 Movement for Freedom of Information v.  Prime Minister's Office, para.  14 (September 7,2022)).  Section 4 of the Government Regulations regulates the manner in which a proposed decision will be presented, and instructs, inter alia, that a proposed decision shall be accompanied by explanatory notes that will also include a legal opinion (Section 4(c) of the Government Regulations).  In the meantime, Sections 4(h)(3) and 9 of the Government Regulations grantthe Prime Minister the authority to deviate from this rule, as necessary.
133. In our case, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the decision makers' proposal for the government's decision was accompanied by a legal opinion. The government claims that the decision makers' proposal was accompanied by an opinion on behalf of the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications dated March 18,2026; while the advisor is of the opinion that the opinion on which the government relied was only a draft, and that in the sub-advisor's letter it was explicitly stated that the legal examination required for the decision-makers' proposal had not yet been completed.  It was further argued that the Prime Minister made use of his authority under section 9 of the Government Regulations in the absence of a professional infrastructure.
134. With regard to the aforementioned dispute, a review of the Cabinet Secretariat's document regarding the government's decision reveals that the Cabinet Secretary explained, at the beginning of the meeting to the members of the Government, that the decision makers' proposal was accompanied, inter alia, by "a legal opinion by the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Communications on each of the members" (Appendix 17 to the Government's Affidavit of Response). The Cabinet Secretary further announced that "in accordance with the Regulations for the Government's work, the Prime Minister sets the agenda for the discussion of the Government and he has approved the inclusion of the proposed resolution on the matter, which was distributed in advance on the website of the envelope and its appendices."
135. As may be recalled, at the end of the discussion that took place before us, the government requested that the confidential stenograms of the government's decisions be submitted for our review. It is clear that it is not possible to disclose what is stated therein, but I will note that an examination of the stenogram reveals that in real time it was explained to the members of the government that a draft legal opinion was placed before them on behalf of the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications and not an opinion that had been completed.  In any event, and within the framework of open information, as appears from Appendix 17 to the government's response affidavit, the members of the government were informed at the beginning of the meeting that the Deputy Attorney General had requested that no discussion be held on the matter until the factual and legal examinations had been completed.
136. One way or another, the Prime Minister as aforesaid is entitled to deviate from the rule according to which a proposal by decision-makers will be accompanied by a legal opinion, and in the circumstances of the present case, I did not find it appropriate to address the question of the factual basis required by him in exercising this authority and the considerations he must consider in this matter. This, as will be detailed below, is because in any event, there was a clear flaw of the type of conflict of interest that stemmed from his direct involvement in the appointment process, including in the exercise of his said authority, given that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is a witness in the criminal trial being conducted against him.

The Government's Decision, Conflict of Interest and the Prime Minister's Conflict of Interest Arrangement

137. The rulings regarding conflicts of interest are well known and well-known. For our purposes, it is sufficient to mention that it is forbidden for a public servant or a public officer to be in a situation where there is a potential conflict of interest between his public position or duties and another interest of his, as a private person or as another officer (Bar, at para.  72; High Court of Justice 9485/08 Ezra v.  Subcommittee for Fundamental Planning Issues (and NTA), para.  19 (January 30,2012)).  Dealing with the fear of a conflict of interest in the public service is generally done within the authorities themselves, in the sense that determining whether a particular officer is in a conflict of interest, and whether a conflict of interest arrangement should be formulated for him, is left to the legal counsel of the relevant ministry (High Court of Justice 65416-03-26 We have chosen life! Bereaved Families and Victims of Hostilities v.  Minister of Justice, para.  41 (August 12,2026); Ben Hamo, at paragraph 9 of my judgment; The Democracy Guard case, at para.  43; The matter of the conflict of interest arrangement, in paragraph 20).
138. The criterion for the existence of a potential conflict of interest is objective. Whereby it is necessary to examine whether the other interests of the public servant are liable to prevent him from fulfilling his public role impartially (AAA 3597/20 Four Desalination Islands Ltd.    State of Israel - Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Energy and Water Authority, para.  24 (August 19,2020)); High Court of Justice 7767/07 Asraf v.  Minister of the Interior (March 27,2008) (hereinafter: the Asraf case); see also: Barak-Erez, at pp.  537-542).  Accordingly, and the matter is a basic concept, the rules of conflict of interest are preventive rules whose purpose is to "prevent the evil before it happens" (High Court of Justice 531/79 "Likud" faction in the Petah Tikva Municipality v.  Petah Tikva Municipal Council, IsrSC 34(2) 556,572 (1980); See also: High Court of Justice 6299/21 Lawyers Association for the Promotion of Good Administration v.  Kaabia Local Council Tabash Hajajra, para.  24 (November 8,2023); Asraf case, at para.  15).  Hence, the burden is not on the person who claims a conflict of interest to prove that a particular decision was indeed made impartially or out of extraneous considerations, but rather it must be shown, with the required probability, the existence of an objective potential for a conflict of interest (the Bar case, at paragraph 73).  However, as the case law clarified, "a theoretical fear of a conflict of interest is not sufficient to justify disqualifying an appointment" (Mandelblit, at para.  79).
139. In our case, the examination of the question of the existence of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest in the government's decision is simpler and does not require a de novo examination of the rules of law. The question of the existence of the conflict of interest will be decided first and foremost in view of the conflict of interest arrangement that was determined for the Prime Minister.  Only if it is found that the arrangement is irrelevant in the circumstances of the case, may the question arise as to whether his participation was invalid by virtue of the general objective test for identifying a conflict of interest.
140. The starting point in this matter is that the conflict of interest arrangement set for the Prime Minister by the Legal Advisor to the Government is binding on the Prime Minister (the Conflict of Interest Arrangement, at paragraph 56). In the framework of the arrangement that was established, section 1(c) states that the Prime Minister must refrain from dealing with the personal affairs of witnesses in the criminal proceedings being conducted against him, which are being heard in government ministries; The section further instructs that where the Prime Minister believes that his involvement in a matter relating to any of the witnesses is warranted, he must turn to the Deputy Attorney General (Appendix 21 to the Government's Affidavit of Reply).  In the context of this limitation, President Hayut clarified the following:

"I am of the opinion that the limitation in paragraph 1(c) of the opinion should be interpreted as requiring the Prime Minister's refraining from involvement in the personal affairs of defendants and witnesses in those situations in which there is actual knowledge of him - or of the parties appointed to assist him in this context - that the same matter is being discussed before one of the government ministries" (ibid., at paragraph 43).

141. There is no dispute that Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev is a witness in the Prime Minister's criminal trial, and appears on the list of witnesses that was attached as an appendix to the conflict of interest arrangement that was prepared for him.  However, on this issue, the government and Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev claim that the latter's testimony ended in December 2022, and since it is no longer possible to influence her testimony, they are of the opinion that the purpose underlying the conflict of interest arrangement is not fulfilled.  However, this interpretation of the arrangement raises difficulties both in terms of language (which does not include such a distinction between types of witnesses) and in terms of purpose.
142. With regard to the conflict of interest arrangement, President Hayut insisted that the purpose of the conflict of interest arrangement is not limited to preventing influence on the course of the trial or a particular testimony. The arrangement is intended to ensure, both in the realm of actual decision-making and in the realm of public visibility, that the personal affairs of the Prime Minister relating to the indictment will not affect his public functioning - and in the words of President Hayut:

"The principle that prohibits a person who holds a public office from being in a situation of conflict of interest is one of the basic principles set forth in our legal system [...] And the reality in which a prime minister serves in office while he is facing an indictment for serious offenses in the field of moral integrity is an exceptional reality that requires strict adherence to this principle.  Therefore, a conflict of interest arrangement is required that will ensure - both in terms of actual decision-making and in terms of public visibility - that the personal matters relating to the indictment filed against the Prime Minister will not affect his functioning as head of the executive branch" (ibid., at para.  16).