The Deputy Advisor's letter also stated that the composition of the Council should be examined in light of the obligation for adequate representation of the Arab population, and that out of the 15 members listed in the proposed resolution, one candidate from this population was included.  The Deputy Advisor also referred to the fact that since October 2024, two representatives of the Arab population have served on the Council, in accordance with a legal opinion that was accepted by the Minister of Communications, according to which the composition of the Council was required to include two such representatives.

30. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, on March 24,2026, the Cabinet meeting was held. Prior to the vote, the Cabinet Secretary noted that various documents were placed before the government, including a legal opinion by the legal advisor to the Ministry of Communications regarding each of the candidates, the proposed decision, and the sub-advisor letter received at the Cabinet Secretariat close to the start of the meeting.  In the meantime, the Cabinet Secretary announced that in accordance with the Government's Work Regulations (hereinafter: the Government Regulations), the Prime Minister sets the agenda for the Cabinet discussion and that he has approved the inclusion of the proposed resolution on the agenda.  Afterwards, the Minister of Communications presented the main points of the proposal, and at the end of his remarks, the government voted and decided unanimously to approve the government's decision regarding the appointment of members of the "incoming" council, including the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev as chairman of the "incoming" council.
31. In the days following the government's decision, the government's legal advisor received inquiries from Knesset members Tal Miron, Karin Elharar and Naama Lazimi. In these letters, it was claimed that given that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is a prosecution witness in the criminal trial being conducted against the Prime Minister (Criminal Case (Jerusalem District) 67104-01-20), the Prime Minister was prevented from dealing with her appointment.  At the same time, the Petitioner also addressed a letter on the subject in the High Court of Justice case 75014-03-26, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel (NPO) (hereinafter: the Movement), in which she pointed out additional flaws that she claimed were caused by the government's decision.
32. The Deputy Advisor responded to the Knesset members' inquiries on March 27,2026. In his response, the Deputy Advisor noted that in accordance with the conflict of interest arrangement made for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister was indeed prevented from dealing with the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev (hereinafter: the Response to Members of Knesset).
33. Three days later, on March 30,2026, the Petitioner filed a High Court of Justice case 4588-04-26, the Association for the Preservation of Legal Values (NPO) (hereinafter: the Association), the Advisor, the Authority and other government entities. In its letter, the association claimed that in light of the prime minister's participation in the voting process in the case of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, all members of the government are "tainted by an institutional conflict of interest, " and therefore are not allowed to promote her appointment to the position.
34. On the same day, on March 30,2026, the Cabinet Secretary sent a letter to the Deputy Advisor regarding the response to the Knesset members, in which he pointed out "the failure of the legal advisor to the government to refrain from advising the Prime Minister on the issue [...] in real time, as he is obligated to do." The Cabinet Secretary emphasized that despite the fact that the Deputy Advisor contacted him shortly after the Cabinet meeting and asked to refrain from discussing the proposed resolution, the latter did not raise the claim of impediments in the Deputy Attorney General's letter. Subsequently, the Cabinet Secretary emphasized that if the Deputy Advisor believed that there was any impediment on the part of the Prime Minister to participate in the discussion, he should have notified it immediately.  The Cabinet Secretary also noted that the Deputy Attorney General (Public-Constitutional Law), Adv. Avital Sompolicinky, who was present at the Cabinet meeting, did not mention any personal impediments by the Prime Minister during the meeting.  Meanwhile, the Cabinet Secretary rejected the Deputy Attorney General's position and wrote that the restrictions in the conflict of interest arrangement with respect to the Prime Minister's involvement in the matter of prosecution witnesses in his trial were not intended to apply to a witness who completed his testimony at trial.
35. The next day, on March 31,2026, and following allegations of a conflict of interest, the government decided to vote again. Justice Minister Yariv Levin took the prime minister's place at the meeting and announced that he had added the issue to the agenda in accordance with his authority set out in the government's bylaws.  After the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister of Communications presented the remarks, the Government decided, unanimously, to once again approve the appointment of the "incoming" Council.  It was emphasized that this was done without prejudice to the validity of the government's decision, "and in order to prevent lip service with respect to the Prime Minister's claim of conflict of interest raised by the Legal Advisor to the Government after the decision was made and which is unacceptable to the Prime Minister and the Government."
36. The petitions before us were filed partly after the government's decision and partly after the government's decision to re-vote. The main arguments in each of them will be presented below, while avoiding repetition of arguments that overlap with each other.

The Journalists' Association's Petition

37. At the outset, the Journalists' Association notes that the government's decisions are another link in a chain of decisions intended to infringe on freedom of the press - it was preceded by the reform promoted by the government in the Broadcasting Law (petitions in this regard are pending, inter alia, in the High Court of Justice case 47996-10-25 Success - for the Promotion of a Fair Society vs. the Government of Israel and related cases); a government decision regarding a "boycott" allegedly against the media outlet, Haaretz/The Marker (petitions pending in the High Court of Justice case 48751-12-24 The Association of Journalists in Israel (NPO) v.  Minister of Communications and a related case); and a government decision regarding the closure of a media outlet - the radio station of Army Radio (this court ordered the annulment of this decision in the case of the High Court of Justice 61683-12-25 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v.  Government of Israel (August 20,2026) (hereinafter: the Army Radio case)).

On the merits, the Journalists' Association argues that the government's decision was made in disregard of the rules of administrative law, in contravention of the government's regulations, and that the decision is also extremely unreasonable, given the flawed factual basis on which it relies.  The Journalists' Association notes that there are currently only two commercial news companies that also broadcast commercial television broadcasts: Channel 12 News and Channel 13.  Harm to each of them, according to the Journalists' Association, even if only partially, is liable to seriously harm the public's right to know and the public interest in a way that will leave the media market weakened.  The Journalists' Association adds in this regard that given the Council's broad powers vis-à-vis the news companies - Powers relating to, inter alia, licensing, supervision, imposition of fines, appointment of directors and approval of the budgets of news companies - Appointment of Position Candidates "Locked" Towards bodies supervised by the Council, it will harm the Council's activities as a whole and the public's confidence in the work of the Authority.  Subsequently, the Journalists' Association claims that the government's decision, and in particular the appointment of D."R.  Ben Chai-Segev, 77"4 in my head and 4"R.  Shine leads to such harm, while these appointments are severely biased and raise concerns about the existence of foreign motives.  Thus, it is claimed that these elements have expressed their firm and public position against News 12 and 13 companies in the past, in a manner that raises concerns that they will act "Take revenge" with those with whom they had a dispute in the past.  The Journalists' Association adds that D.'s firm stance"R.  Ben Chai-Segev, 77"4 in my head and 4"R.  Shine, as expressed in the past, stains the Council as a whole.

38. Specifically, with regard to the appointment of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, the Journalists' Association claims that she is in a severe conflict of interest, inter alia, since she served until recently as a director on behalf of the Authority at Channel 13 News.  In this regard, the Journalists' Association claims that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev acted in an irrelevant manner against the appointment of the current Director General of Channel 13.  In this context, the Journalists' Association refers to the position of the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Communications, according to which Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is required to have a six-month cooling-off period from any activity related to television broadcasting.  Further, it was argued that in view of the provision of section 12(a) of the Law, which limits the appointment of the acting chairman of the council to three months, according to the legislature's intention, there is no reason to appoint a candidate who is tainted by a conflict of interest that requires a six-month cooling-off.  The Journalists' Association also argues in relation to this point that the committee's decision regarding the shortening of the cooling-off period to three months was not explained, and that the determination that it will be able to deal with the affairs of News 12 and Keshet is puzzling in the circumstances.  Moreover, the Journalists' Association points out that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev conducted legal proceedings against Channel 12 journalists (see below in the Channel 12 petition) and that there is a political connection between her and the Minister of Communications.
39. In the case of Adv. Barashi, the Journalists' Association claims that Barashi expresses "deep hostility" on a serial basis towards Channel 12 and Channel 13 and their journalists. It is claimed that Barashi expresses abusive remarks towards them, accusing journalists of war crimes, endangering IDF soldiers, and intensifying anti-Semitism.  To illustrate this, the Journalists' Association refers to a series of various public quotes from Attorney Barashi: "The media in some places is very endangering the security of the State of Israel"; "If it were possible to remove some of the media from incapacitation, it would be good." In particular, regarding Channel 13 News and its journalists, the Journalists' Association refers to a variety of statements: "There are five journalists with personal interests who are doing damage to the entire society.  It is clear that the journalists who work against the company and endanger the livelihood of 500 families should leave"; "Glickman is like a mosquito, not even a mosquito, just a continuous buzz that dissipates over time"; "Baruch Kara is a lowly and wretched man"; "A Bible for those who are struggling: You (Channel 13) broadcast like Jihad", and more.  At the same time, according to the Journalists' Association, Adv. Barashi expresses open and public support for the prime minister and even publicly criticizes his opponents, thus creating a clear political connection between her and the ruling party: " I am a hardcore Bibi, and in my eyes this is a compliment"; "I'm very proud of my relationship with him, really" [about the connection with the prime minister]; "A blood libel against Jews is (also) coming out of Neve Ilan - Channel 12 [...] and Channel 13, two political parties [...] with the same goal: 'toppling Netanyahu's regime.'"
40. Regarding Dr. Shine, the Journalists' Association refers to his various statements against the media, including Channel 12 and Channel 13.  Thus, Dr.  Shine has previously noted that "there is cooperation between the police and the media in order to bring down a prime minister"; "It seems that many media outlets have happily embraced the Arab-Palestinian narrative [...] Television channels faithfully serve the radical left [...] "; "The public is fed up with all the channels that remind it of Al Jazeera and these depressive channels that are constantly criticized [...] "; "The fake media is mobilized 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 [...] Their only goal is to give expression to obsessive, psychopathological hatred, which is summarized in the slogan 'Just Not Bibi' [...] ".  Hence, the Journalists' Association argues that the various statements quoted above reflect a deliberate trend on the part of the candidates that contradicts the obligations imposed on a regulator such as the Council, including the duty of fairness and neutrality.

News 12 Petition

41. Channel 12 News focuses solely on the appointment of Dr. Ben Hai-Segev.  According to Channel 12, the appointment should be revoked because Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is in a serious conflict of interest, and also because the government did not have a full factual basis.  According to Channel 12 News, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev has a severe and long-standing personal hostility toward her, her managers and her journalists.  This hostility, according to Channel 12 News, establishes certainty that any decision made by the "incoming" council in her case will be tainted with bias.  Channel 12 News specifies that, among other things, the background to the dispute between the parties lies in the fact that in the past, Channel 12 petitioned against the decision of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Council - headed by Dr.  Ben Hai-Segev - in the framework of the tender proceedings for the operation of the Knesset Channel in 2017 (High Court of Justice 4587/18 Knesset Broadcasting Channel Ltd.    The Council for Cable Broadcasting and Satellite Broadcasting (July 19,2018) (hereinafter: the Matter Knesset Channel)).  It was noted that following the issue of the Knesset Channel, the Council for Cable and Satellite Broadcasting was forced, against the wishes of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, to disqualify the bid of Channel 20 (now Channel 14) in the tender.  Channel 12 News also adds that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev publicly accused her of serious and false accusations, according to which the company published press publications about Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev in order to "settle scores with her" and take revenge on her for her conduct in the Knesset Channel tender process.

In addition, Channel 12 News notes that following press publications it published and related to the minister's intention to appoint D."R.  Ben Hai-Segev to Director of the Government Company Israel Post Ltd."40:4"R.  Ben-Hai-Segev in a legal proceeding against Channel 12 News and its journalists, Amalia Dwek and Guy Peleg (Civil Case ‏(‏Shalom T"A)‏ 64762-01-24 Ben Chai-Segev N' Peleg ‏(‏26.11.2025‏) (Hereinafter: Defamation lawsuit)).  Channel 12 News specifies that in the warning letter for a defamation lawsuit, D."R.  Ben-Hai-Segev that Channel 12 News publications stemmed from "Malicious motive and desire to close accounts"; and that in the statement of claim, D claimed"R.  Ben Hai-Segev that News 12 "Sees herself as having an 'open account' with D"R.  Ben Hai Segev" and that the publications were made with the intention of harming her.  Another reference in this regard to Channel 12 News is the affidavit of the main witness on behalf of D."R.  Ben Hai-Segev in a defamation suit, where the latter noted that against the background of the tender proceedings for the Knesset Channel "Senior News 12 executives remain hostile to me".  It was also noted that in her testimony in court, D.  claimed"R.  Ben Hai-Segev that News 12 "Responsible for a very long, unceasing chain that continues to this day, of harming my good name".  Channel 12 News further notes that the defamation lawsuit was rejected by the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court (the judge Rabbi Goldstein), while it was determined that the defense of good faith should be applied to one of the publications.  The day after the judgment was rendered, D published"R.  Ben Hai-Segev on the Internet X (Formerly Twitter) a tweet in which she wondered, among other things: "Do you believe Peleg's good faith?".

42. Beyond that, Channel 12 News notes Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev's relationship with Prof.  Moshe Cohen Elia, and the fact that the latter often speaks bluntly against Channel 12 News, and that he was recently appointed by the Minister of Economy to head a fund to finance lawsuits against Channel 12 News and to finance the defense of those who are sued by it.  In this context, Channel 12 News notes that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev joined the research institute "Massad Haaretz" founded by Prof.  Cohen Elia, with the role of coordinating the field of communication and culture at the institute.  In this regard, Channel 12 News claims that according to Prof.  Cohen Elia, the research institute is intended, among other things, to "identify centers of power and lead to the dismantling of the deep state mechanisms."
43. In light of this, and taking into account the fact that until recently Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev served as a director of Channel 13 - the direct competitor of Channel 12 News - it is argued that there is absolute certainty that Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev will be found in a severe conflict of interest with respect to any decision or exercise of authority that will affect Channel 12.  In this regard, Channel 12 emphasizes that given the breadth and nature of the various powers granted to the Council, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev will in practice have central powers that go to the root of Channel 12's activity and its supervision.  This is in addition to other powers, which also relate to its parent company, Keshet Broadcasting.

The Traffic Petition

44. The Movement argues that the government's decision should be annulled. The Movement points out that behind the decision is the fact that only recently a chain was acquired by a group of investors, an acquisition that is subject to the approval of the Council in accordance with the law.  According to the Movement, the government acted quickly to appoint the "incoming" council in order to thwart the acquisition deal, which is in the "critical stages of approval, " as the Movement put it.  According to the movement, the group of investors is expected to maintain the independence of the coverage on Channel 13 News, and for this reason the government is working to prevent the purchase deal.

In addition, the Movement points to a series of flaws that it believes were caused by the government's decision.  First, the Movement maintains that The obligation to consult the minister under the law was not fulfilled as required.  This, among other things, is because the The Decision Makers, The legal advisory opinion to the Ministry of Communications and the decisions of the Appointments Review Committee did not specify the details of the consultation.  Including, He did not specify which parties the minister consulted with, Which candidates were proposed and what was the position of the advisory bodies? In the documents that served as the basis for the government's decision.  Thus, Noted in general Only that the minister's office contacted the bodies with which it was required to consult.  She further claims The Movement said that the government's decision violates the duty of proper representation for members of the Arab population.  According to her, This obligation is not formal, but substantive, and requires that reasonable and active measures be taken to locate candidates From this group.  In practice, however, From 15 Council Members, There is only one Arab representative, When the percentage of the Arab population requires at least three representatives.

45. The Movement further claims that Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, Adv. Barashi and Dr.  Shine were appointed in contravention of Section 9(b) of the Law, which prohibits the appointment of a candidate whose other occupations are liable to create a conflict of interest with his position.  In addition, it is claimed that the government's decision was made in the absence of a full factual and legal basis.  According to the movement, the deputy advisor warned that the legal examination had not yet been completed, and even asked that the decision makers' proposal not be discussed until the examination was completed.  Despite this, the government made the decision, even though there was no urgency in the appointment.  This is especially so since the decision was made in the midst of the war, during Operation Lion's Roar, and given that the "outgoing" council would have continued to serve until the appointment was duly completed, after the completion of the necessary examinations.  In terms of the factual basis, the movement claims that the government was not presented with material information about some of the candidates.  This includes the statements reviewed above by Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, Adv. Barashi and Dr.    According to the movement, this information is required to examine the objectivity, conflicts of interest, and qualifications of the candidates.  The movement adds that the committee for examining appointments also relied on the same missing infrastructure.  According to her, the lack of a sufficient factual basis in both stages of the proceeding necessitates the cancellation of the government's decision.

The movement also claims that the government's decision is tainted by extraneous considerations.  According to the movement, the totality of the circumstances shows that the appointment of the council "Incoming" It is intended to thwart the transaction of buying a chain.  In this context, the The Movement On the inexplicable urgency According to her approach Sheba Lineּדם The Appointment.  This, Although the minister is promoting Reform in the framework of the Broadcasting Law which is intended to abolish the council in its current form.

46. The movement adds that the government's decision disproportionately harms freedom of expression and freedom of the press. According to the movement, the harm stems from the appointment of members affiliated with the ruling party, whohave expressed hostility toward the media bodies they will be required to supervise.  The movement also believes that the appointment of a council that is tainted by a conflict of interest and political bias is liable to harm the independence of the press, pluralism, and the ability of the press to criticize the government.

Press Council Petition

47. The Press Council points out that the process of making the government's decision was flawed, since the decision makers' proposal was added to the agenda only two days before the Cabinet meeting on the subject. The Press Council further claims that the materials placed before the ministers were incomplete.  In addition, the Press Council's request regarding the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev was not presented to the ministers.  This impaired their ability to examine the appointment and exercise informed judgment.

Beyond that, the Press Council is of the opinion that the cooling-off period set by the committee is"R.  Ben-Hai-Segev does not heal the conflict of interest in which she finds herself.  The Press Council adds that"R.  Ben Hai-Segev has a clear political affiliation with the Minister of Communications.  According to the claim, This connection is obligatory.  The Committee To examine whether it meets special qualifications according to the section 18C To the Government Companies Law.  According to the Press Council, Appointing someone with a political affiliation without special skills is liable to harm the independence of the council and the public's trust in it.  It was also claimed that the prime minister, as part of the appointment process, violated his conflict of interest arrangement by bringing the issue of the appointment to the government's agenda and even participating in the vote.  Finally, Press Council I wish to examine the The government's decision Against the backdrop of other moves in the field of communications, when accumulation The Moves in an Empowering Election Year According to her, The Danger to Freedom of the Press.

The Association's Petition

48. The association's petition focuses on the appointment of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, and on the allegations of a violation of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest arrangement, while the association argues that under the circumstances that have been created, all members of the government are also prevented from deciding on the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, and hence the government's decision to revote cannot cure the flaw that has occurred.

The association notes that"R.  Ben-Hai-Segev testified in the Prime Minister's criminal trial, but gave a different testimony than the one she gave during her interrogation at the Israel Securities Authority, in a manner that benefited the Prime Minister.  In this context, the Association notes that although D.'s testimony"R.  Ben Hai-Segev has already been heard, she is still a witness in the trial for all intents and purposes, and which of the parties or the court can call her to testify again, in accordance with the section 167 30The Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated version], 588"In 1982 (hereinafter: The Kindness"פ).  The association also points to the flaw inherent in the fact that not long after breast"R.  Ben-Hai-Segev testified on behalf of the Prime Minister in court, she is appointed to a senior public position - This fact in itself allegedly harms the public's trust.  For this reason, the association argues that the conflict of interest arrangement takes on additional significance: an arrangement intended to prevent even the slightest appearance of connection between the testimony and the appointment.

49. As noted, the association is of the opinion that the government's decision to revote does not heal the flaw in the appointment of Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev.  This is in light of the prime minister's participation in the discussion of the government's decision, as a result of which, according to the association, the members of the government were exposed to the prime minister's desire for the appointment, and therefore they too are in a conflict of interest.  In this regard, the association relies on the judgment in the High Court of Justice case 18615-11-25 The Israeli Democracy Guard (R.A.) v.  the Attorney General (November 16,2025) (hereinafter: the Democracy Guard case) (it should be noted that the judgment will be heard in the future (additional hearing54128-11-25 The Israeli Democracy Guard v.  the Minister of Justice).  The association argues that the precedent established in the matter of the Democracy Guard should be applied lightly, since in our case we are dealing with a clear, explicit and signed conflict of interest arrangement that was knowingly violated.  The association also points out that in contrast to the State Attorney's Office, which was at the center of the issue of the Democracy Guard - a system that is extensive and decentralized - the government is a political body whose members are accustomed to acting as one person.  The association also notes that government members are directly subordinate to the prime minister, and he is authorized to appoint and dismiss them.  Under these circumstances, the association believes, there are impediments by all government ministers with regard to the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev.  The association emphasizes that it recognizes that the significance of this from Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is not a trivial matter, but according to it, once the prime minister expressed his opinion on the matter twice - once when the proposal was placed on the government's agenda, and the second time when he voted on it - the defect cannot be cured.

Applications of the Legal Advisor to the Committee for the Examination of Appointments

50. Following previous inquiries on behalf of the Counseling and Legislation Department, the Deputy Advisor contacted the Committee on April 1,2026 and requested its response to the arguments raised in the petitions. In the Committee's response to this request and its supplementary response, it was stated that most of the arguments raised regarding the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, Adv. Barashi and Dr.  Shine were not before the Committee at the time it made its decision.
51. The Deputy Advisor addressed another letter to the Chairman of the Committee on April 30,2026 (hereinafter: the Deputy Advisor's letter of April 30,2026). In this letter, the Deputy Advisor noted the difficulties arising from the fact that the Committee's decision was made based on a factual and legal basis.  The Deputy Advisor added that from the references conveyed by the Legal Bureau of the Government Companies Authority, it appears that a significant part of the arguments raised were not examined by the Committee at all.  The Deputy Advisor concluded his letter by saying that this flaw, as well as other flaws that he discussed, lead to the conclusion that the government's decisions had flaws that justified their cancellation.

Following the Deputy Attorney General's letter dated April 30,2026, and after the Minister of Communications and the Cabinet Secretary contacted the government's legal advisor on the matter, the government was approved for separate representation in the present proceeding.

52. Shortly thereafter, and before the Attorney General's response to the petitions was submitted, on May 3,2026, my colleague Justice Stein issued a temporary order prohibiting the convening of the "incoming" Council.

The Attorney General's Response

53. The Advisor is of the opinion that the government's decisions should be invalidated due to material flaws that go to the root of the process of accepting them. First and foremost, the Advisor points out that before the Committee for the Examination of Appointments, all the material data required for the examination of the proposed candidates were not present.  Therefore, the committee's decision was based on a lack of infrastructure, and as a result, the infrastructure that was laid before the government was also lacking.  Therefore, according to the committee, the matter should be returned to the committee for the examination of appointments in order to make a new decision, and in the framework of the renewed discussion, the committee will be required to consider all the relevant data and arguments for the appointments, after receiving the candidates' response to these claims.  In this context, with regard to the appointment of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev, the Advisor notes, inter alia, that there is room to examine the allegations of bias and conflict of interest vis-à-vis Channel 12, and the impact of these on both her appointment to a position on the Council and the scope of the impediments that will be imposed on her in relation to her work in the field of television broadcasting.  In the case of Adv. Barashi, the Attorney General notes that a question arises regarding her hostility and bias towards Channel 12 and Channel 13, as well as questions relating to her political affiliation and her activity in the interest of the Prime Minister's personal interest.  In this regard, the Attorney General refers to the fact that Adv. Barashi operates a YouTube channel in which she covers the criminal proceedings being conducted against the Prime Minister and expresses her unqualified support for the Prime Minister.  In the case of Dr.  Shine as well, the Attorney General notes that there is a concern of bias on his part towards the supervised media channels, inter alia, against the background of his various statements.  Subsequently, the Attorney General argues that the aforementioned claims and data raise serious concerns of a conflict of interest and bias among some members of the Council, including hostility toward the supervised media and political affiliations with the ruling party and the Prime Minister.
54. The Advisor is of the opinion that a thorough examination of these claims andtheir significance is required, including whether they affect the appointment itself or require the preparation of various conflict of interest arrangements in the case of the candidates. The Advisor further believes that these issues should be examined in light of the Council's role in regulating media bodies, and taking into account the impact of its significant powers on the realization of the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the public's right to know.  According to her, the council must act independently of the political echelon, fair and objective towards the supervised bodies - this is the case in general, and even more so in an election year.  In this context, the advisor emphasizes the special importance of news and current affairs coverage in formulating citizens' positions ahead of the elections.  Against this background, the Advisor argues that the proper process of appointing council members and her ability to fulfill her role with professionalism, relevance and independence must be ensured.
55. As noted, since the committee's decision was given to the Attorney General on the basis of a lack of infrastructure, the Attorney General is of the opinion that the government's decisions on the matter are also fundamentally flawed. In addition, the Attorney General argues that the government's decision was made in a hurry, prior to the completion of the examination process, and without the urgency that justified it.  In this context, the Attorney General reminds us that before the government convened to discuss the proposal of the decision-makers, the Deputy Advisor contacted the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary and requested that the Government not discuss the appointment of the Council at its meeting.  The Attorney General further notes that the government's decision was brought without a legal opinion as required.  Attached to the proposal was a draft legal opinion, the writing of which has not yet been completed.  In this regard, the Attorney General refers to Section 4(c) of the Government Regulations, which states that "explanatory notes to the proposed resolution shall come separately and shall include the information and data as the case may be, and a legal opinion, all as detailed in Appendix A to these regulations." The Advisor notes that while Sections 9 and 4H(3) of the Government Regulations allow the Prime Minister to deviate from these provisions in special or urgent cases, in this case there was no urgency.  According to the Attorney General, the Prime Minister's decision of March 24,2026, and the Minister of Justice's decision of March 31,2026, to make use of the authority set forth in Section 9 of the Government Regulations, in order to permit a discussion of the decision-makers' proposal without an accompanying legal opinion, were not supported by any professional basis.  Nor was any explanation given as to why the government acted in this way.  Hence, the Attorney General argues that the lack of legal opinions to accompany the government's decisions is another layer in the lack of infrastructure that the government faced when making the decisions on the agenda.
56. Regarding the issue of the Prime Minister's conflict of interest in appointing Dr. Ben-Hai-Segev, the Advisor notes that in accordance with the conflict of interest arrangement made for the Prime Minister in 2020, the Prime Minister must refrain from dealing with the case of a witness in his criminal trial.  The Attorney General further notes that the conflict of interest arrangement was approved in the High Court of Justice case 3056/20 The Movement for Quality Government in Israel v.  the Attorney General (March 25,2021) (hereinafter: the Conflict of Interest Arrangement Matter).  Accordingly, when the Prime Minister believes that his involvement in the matter of a witness is required, he must apply in advance to the Prime Minister's Office for legal counsel in order to receive appropriate instructions.  In this regard, the Attorney General emphasizes that the Prime Minister's involvement in making a decision with respect to a witness in his trial can give rise to a concern of a conflict of interest even after the witness has already completed his testimony.  This is when the decision can benefit or harm the witness, depending on the content of his testimony, in a manner that is capable of influencing that witness or other witnesses in the trial.  As to the circumstances of our case, Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev is a prosecution witness in the Prime Minister's trial, and appears on the list of witnesses that was attached as an appendix to the conflict of interest arrangement.  It was also noted that in light of Dr.  Ben-Hai-Segev's deviation from her initial version during her testimony, the prosecution sought to declare her a "hostile witness." In other words, her testimony benefited the Prime Minister.

The Advisor emphasizes that despite the above, the Prime Minister has made a number of decisions related to the appointment of D."R.  Ben-Hai-Segev: (1) The very inclusion of the issue in the government's agenda; (2) the decision to ignore the absence of a legal opinion when including the proposal on the government's agenda; (3) the decision to hold a discussion of the proposed resolution despite the request of the deputy attorney general; (4) the prime minister participated in the discussion on the proposal and voted on the resolution that includes the appointment of D."R.  Ben Hai-Segev Liu"Chairman of the Council.  From this the Advisor concludes that the Prime Minister had real involvement in various stages of approving the government's decision.