High Court hears petition as public broadcaster KAN faces risk of having no council, executive

On Wednesday, the High Court of Justice heard legal challenges regarding the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) facing the potential lack of a governing council and permanent chief executive. Currently, only five out of 12 council positions are filled, with three of those members holding temporary court orders. To function, at least seven members are necessary.

KAN's CEO, Golan Yochpaz, serves a four-year term ending on November 6, and the council is responsible for extending his term, selecting a replacement, or appointing an acting chief executive. Without a functioning council, KAN risks operational failure.

The nonprofit Hatzlacha filed petitions asking the court to temporarily extend Yochpaz's tenure until 60 days after the council resumes operation, ensuring continuity while providing time for a restored council to decide Yochpaz's continuation or replacement. While Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and the five serving council members support this proposal, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi opposes it, arguing that the court lacks authority to appoint the chief executive or extend the term.

Karhi also petitioned to dismiss the remaining petitions, citing changed circumstances since they were filed.

The court's ruling concerns four ongoing petitions, challenging Karhi's decisions not to extend the terms of Michal Rafaeli-Kaduri, Menachem Ben-Sasson, and Amir Sabhat, all recommended by an independent search committee, and not to appoint a fourth candidate, Aliza Dayan Hamama. Additionally, the appointment of an acting council chair remains unresolved. The court previously instructed Karhi to appoint a chair promptly after deciding candidacy recommendations.

A separate search for six additional council members is underway, with 69 applications received. The initial examination and scoring process is expected to continue until at least the start of October, followed by interviews, recommendations, a review committee examination, and final decisions by the minister. This process unfolds during an election period, during which senior public appointments are subject to additional legal constraints.

The dispute centers on the extent of Karhi's discretion over recommended candidates. The justices questioned whether the minister is withholding individual appointments until he secures a broader council composition acceptable to him. Karhi maintains he has the judgment to choose a council reflecting the public, while the petitioners argue his discretion has prevented the council from functioning effectively.

During the hearing, the justices inquired whether the minister is withholding appointments until he can secure a council composition he prefers. Karhi contends he is entitled to exercise judgment over the search committee's recommendations, seeking a council that reflects public opinion.