BySARAH BEN-NUNAUGUST 12, 2026 19:27Chief prosecutor Amit Aisman may handle the investigation into the leak of footage from the Sde Teiman detention facility and the alleged cover-up that followed, the High Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday.The court ruled by a 2-1 majority that there was no basis to overturn an updated opinion by Justice Ministry legal adviser Yael Kotik, which found that Aisman was no longer barred from handling the case.The restriction on Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and her office remains in place. The dispute concerned who could provide legal oversight after Baharav-Miara, Aisman, and other senior officials were initially considered unable to participate because of their involvement in an earlier internal examination of the leak and the possibility that they might be required to testify.In an earlier ruling, the court found that Justice Minister Yariv Levin could appoint a senior civil servant to perform the attorney-general’s supervisory role, subject to strict restrictions intended to prevent political influence over the investigation.Levin first appointed Judicial Complaints Commissioner Asher Kula, but the court struck down the appointment because the law governing Kula’s position barred him from taking on another role. Levin subsequently appointed retired judge Yosef Ben-Hamo, whose appointment was canceled because he did not meet the eligibility requirements established by the court.State Attorney Amit Aisman (credit: COURTESY HAIFA UNIVERSITY)After Ben-Hamo’s appointment was struck down, Levin neither appointed another eligible supervisor nor asked the court to make an appointment, as the judges had suggested. The investigation continued under the supervision of senior police officials.Police reported in February that they had completed their investigative work, although the majority assumed for the purposes of Wednesday’s ruling that the investigation itself had not formally concluded.Kotik: Aisman appropriate choice since he was not involvedKotik subsequently found that Aisman could handle the case because investigators had concluded that he was not involved in the relevant events and would not be required to testify.The majority ruled that her updated opinion rested on a sufficiently current and comprehensive factual basis. It also refused to give Levin additional time to appoint an external supervisor, noting that he had already declined to exercise that authority for several months.Court: Judges cannot replace law enforcementThe court unanimously rejected the petitioners’ request to order the police to pursue particular lines of investigation or undertake specific investigative steps, saying judges do not act as investigators or replace the professional judgment of law enforcement authorities.Justice David Mintz dissented from the remainder of the ruling, arguing that Levin should be required to explain why he had not appointed an external supervisor in accordance with the court’s earlier decision.Follow us on Google