Asia

The Israeli Parliament approves a controversial clause of the judicial reform

The Israeli Parliament approves a controversial clause of the judicial reform

March 14 (EUROPA PRESS) –

The Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, has approved on Monday night a controversial clause of the judicial reform bill, a measure that has generated massive protest demonstrations in the streets of the country in recent weeks.

The legislators have voted, in first reading, with 61 votes in favor and 52 against — and after several hours of debate — the introduction of a clause that would allow Parliament to redraft laws knocked down by the Supreme Court.

This clause, called “annulment”, has to be returned to the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of Parliament, to be reviewed and prepared for the following readings.

The judicial reform will need to go through two more times for the approval of the members of the Knesset before it can become law, the newspaper ‘The Times of Israel’ has reported.

Once it is approved and enters into force, the clause will be valid during the parliamentary term in which it has been approved, as well as one year during the following term, at which time legislators can decide whether to extend the clause indefinitely.

The annulment clause adds to a series of reforms, most notably an attempt to restructure judicial appointments so that the governing coalition has control over the body’s elections.

Hours earlier, Israeli legislators presented a government-backed bill that seeks to modify the conditions for recusal of the post of prime minister to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu from being suspended in the context of criminal proceedings against him for corruption.

The judicial reform that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is undergoing, and that, according to the opposition, would greatly limit the ability of the courts to annul legislation that violates the Constitution, would give the Executive full control over the appointment of judges , including those of the Supreme Court, and would greatly limit the capacity of the court.

Source link

Tags