In other words, , The purpose of the conflict of interest arrangement, As clarified in the case law, Inna Abstract Preventing the possibility of influencing the testimony of a witness. To this, I will add that the position that upon the conclusion of the testimony of a certain witness, the conflict of interest arrangement in his case ends is illogical. It is clear that the conflict of interest arrangement is intended to prevent situations in which the witness will also be given "Benefit" for his testimony (after it has ended). Otherwise, there will be a concern that witnesses will be present at the trial (and not only the one who enjoys the same "Benefit") will see what will be done to the person who is the object of the arrangement "Hefetz visited".
Moreover, in terms of public visibility, without addressing the weighty claims raised regarding the significance of the content of D.'s testimony"R. Ben-Hai-Segev, and even ignoring the fact that the prosecution in the prime minister's criminal trial sought to declare it as"Hostile Witness" - There is a reason for the flaw in the fact that the prime minister is acting to promote the appointment of a witness in his trial to a senior public position. Therefore, even if at this stage there is no practical possibility for the prime minister to influence the testimony that has already been given - And without having to go into the questions that arose in relation to the theoretical possibility of a demon"R. Ben Hai-Segev will be called to testify again (section 167 For Kindness"פ) - His very active involvement in the decision-making process in the government is likely to raise doubt among the observer from the sidelines as to whether the distinction between the prime minister's personal interest and his public position has been fully preserved. It should also be noted that there is even a reason for the flaw in the prime minister's attempt to promote a restrictive interpretation of his own arrangement. In particular, since he did not consult the legal counsel on the matter in advance, as he should have done if doubt arose in his heart, and even without explaining the "Interpretation" This is his in real time - Rather, he remembered to present the restrictive interpretation of the arrangement only retroactively, after arguments were raised on the matter.
- Therefore, our conclusion is that in the Prime Minister's decision to put on the agenda the issue of voting for the members of the Council, including Dr. Ben Hai-Segev; in his decision to make use of his authority under Section 9 of the Government Regulations in the context of the said vote; and in his participation in the Cabinet meeting and his vote on the appointment of Dr. Ben Hai-Segev - the Prime Minister violated the conflict of interest arrangement. In this context, it should be recalled that in the government's decision it was explicitly stated that "the government secretary announced that in accordance with the regulations for the work of the government, the prime minister sets the agenda for the discussion of the government, and he approved the inclusion of the proposed resolution in the matter" [emphasis added].
- Since we find that the Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest with respect to the appointment of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, the conclusion is necessary that he was not entitled to participate in the decision-making process regarding her appointment. In this context, there is no bearing on the fact that the government's decision was ultimately adopted unanimously, or that the Prime Minister's vote was not required for its acceptance. This, first, takes into account that according to the Cabinet Secretary, the very inclusion of the proposed resolution was made with the (personal) approval of the Prime Minister; and also that the rule prohibiting conflict of interest also applies to participation in the decision-making process of a collegial body such as the government, all the more so when it comes to the Prime Minister, and the very participation of a person who is in a conflict of interest impairs the proper conduct of the proceeding. In a similar context, I had the opportunity to clarify the following in the Bar case :
"An officer who is in a situation of conflict of interest cannot be part of the decision-making process on a matter in respect of which the conflict of interest exists; and his mere participation in the vote impairs the integrity of the entire proceeding. Thus, the court has ruled more than once in various contexts of decision-making by collegial bodies [...] If so, the very fact that the Prime Minister participated in the discussion and voted, which, as stated, was in a situation of conflict of interest, therefore leads to the invalidity of the decision, since the rule of conflict of interest also applies to collegiate bodies" (ibid., at paragraphs 86-87).