Israel’s vacant state comptroller post stalls whistleblower protection and campaign oversight

A public employee who says he was fired for reporting wrongdoing sought emergency protection from Israel’s state comptroller, only to find that the office had no authorized head to consider his case. He turned to a labor court instead and spent nearly 90,000 shekels, about $30,000, on legal action, according to an attorney who advised him.

Israel has had no state comptroller since Matanyahu Englman’s term ended on July 5. The vacancy has interrupted a central route for protecting public-sector whistleblowers and left parts of campaign-finance oversight without the official empowered to act.

The post became vacant after a disputed Knesset vote to choose Englman’s successor. The comptroller is elected by lawmakers through a secret ballot, but several members recorded or otherwise disclosed their votes during the second round. On July 2, the High Court of Justice invalidated the election of attorney Michael Rabello and ordered the Knesset to hold another vote between the two candidates already presented.

The court did not decide a separate conflict-of-interest argument involving Rabello. Rachel El-Shai Rosenfeld, an attorney with the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, said Rabello had represented Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud, including in matters involving coalition agreements that could later come under the comptroller’s scrutiny. She called the compromised ballot unlawful and an instance of improper administration, but stopped short of calling it criminal corruption.

Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana has not convened the new vote. Reports said he had indicated that the Knesset had already expressed its position and did not intend to hold another election. The Knesset’s legal adviser, Sagit Afik, reportedly said lawmakers remained obligated to follow the court ruling and that the Knesset’s dissolution did not prevent it from choosing a comptroller. Opposition parties have not mounted a sustained effort to force a vote, and some parties linked to the original challenge reportedly have not asked the High Court to enforce its decision, set a deadline or consider contempt proceedings.

“

The compromised ballot was unlawful and a case of improper administration.