Why Did the Court Freeze the State Comptroller’s Investigation into the Events of October 7?

Why did the court decide to freeze the State Comptroller’s investigation into the events of October 7?

In my view, the court’s decision is justified. The State Comptroller is not the body designed or equipped to examine events of this magnitude.

When this institution was established in 1958, its mandate was to review the efficiency of government spending and compliance with budgetary procedures. Over time, its powers expanded, but at its core, it remains an instrument for overseeing government budget, expenditures, and routine operations — not for investigating dramatic events of national scale.

But there is no State Commission of Inquiry. Who then is investigating the causes of the failure?

There are internal investigations — within the military, for example. These have been partially published, to the extent permitted by state secrecy considerations. This is insufficient, of course.

Certain issues do fall within the State Comptroller’s purview regarding the routine operations of specific agencies. He has not been prohibited from investigating everything — he has been prohibited from addressing certain serious matters for which his procedures are inadequate.

What is the fundamental difference between the State Comptroller and a State Commission of Inquiry?

The State Comptroller has lower status and fewer powers. He is accountable to a political body — the Knesset and its State Control Committee. A State Commission of Inquiry, by contrast, is independent.

The law itself states that the Comptroller may investigate “other matters” beyond the ten core areas of his jurisdiction. But the court ruled that the events of October 7 do not constitute “other matters.” This is a matter of such gravity that invoking auxiliary powers for such an investigation is inappropriate.

Can the State Comptroller issue personal findings against specific individuals?

He can. And this is precisely one of the reasons petitions were filed with the High Court of Justice. Those who could potentially be affected — senior military and security officials — argue that the State Comptroller lacks procedures to protect their rights, unlike a State Commission of Inquiry. He holds inquisitorial powers and does not provide them with full information. This is why the petition was filed and a temporary injunction has now been issued.

What exactly has been frozen, and what happens next?

The publication of reports, the summoning of witnesses, and the examination of personal matters have been frozen. However, the Comptroller may continue certain activities.

Within one month, the State Comptroller must present his position to the court. Had he confined himself to, say, the question of the border fence’s effectiveness — that would have been legitimate. But he began addressing the matter comprehensively. We have no precedent for the State Comptroller conducting an investigation of this scale. He was not designed for this purpose.