5

In Israel, the supreme court is going to discuss an appeal to oust the prime minister, due to claims that he has a conflict of interest: he is involved in legislation regarding the justice system while there is an ongoing trial against him.

Is there any other democratic country in which the supreme court can oust an elected head-of-government due to a conflict of interest, without him being convicted first in a criminal trial?

Improve this question
3
  • without him being convicted in trial -> No, not even in the view of the Israeli Supreme Court. After all, they decided to hear arguments, which is a form of trial. A better question would be if there is a country in which the Supreme Court can hold a trial to remove the head of government (President Herzog is the Israeli head of state).
    – xyldke
    Commented Jul 25, 2023 at 13:27
  • 4
    @xyldke by "convicted" I meant "convicted in a criminal trial" (that is the common meaning of "conviction", as far as I know). The current hearing is not a criminal trial.
    – Erel Segal-Halevi
    Commented Jul 26, 2023 at 7:11
  • 1
    In constitutional monarchies such as the UK where the head of government is appointed by the monarch, the supreme court can't formally remove the head of government, but if the head of government was found to have acted in a seriously unconstitutional way and refused to quit, then the monarch has the power to remove the PM and might be expected to take action following a court ruling - if the PM didn't resign first. But it remains hypothetical.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jul 26, 2023 at 11:24

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

There are jurisdictions where high ranking officials (like the head of state or the head of government) can be removed from office by the Supreme Court but they all require charges to be brought by the legislature.

While removal rerquires some form of misconduct, it usually doesn't require a criminal conviction. This has two reasons:

  1. High-ranking officials may enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, making removal from office a prerequisite for a criminal trial.
  2. Official misconduct can be illegal or unconstitutional without it being a crime. Say parliament enacts a law and the prime minister decides to not enforce it. That's not a crime but it is unconstitutional and may warrant removal.

Here's an overview of a few countries where a court decides on removal from office (taken from this Wikipedia article):

Country Who can be removed Why can they be removed Who can initiate proceedings Deciding court
Czechia President High treason or gross violations of the constitution Parliament with 3/5 majority in both chambers Constitutional Court
Denmark Any minister Unlawful misconduct and maladministration of office Parliament with absolute majority or the Monarch Court of Impeachment (comprised of 15 Supreme Court judges and 15 members of parliament
Germany President Willful violation of the constitution or another law Parliament with 2/3 majority in either chamber Constitutional Court
Italy President High treason or violation of the constitution Parliament with absolute majority in both chambers1 Constitutional Court with an additional 16 parliamentary appointees
South Korea President, ministers, judges, ... Violation of constitutional or statutory duties Parliament with absolute majority Constitutional Court
Turkey President, ministers Crimes Parliament with 2/3 majority Constitutional Court

In each of these cases, the deciding court holds a trial and ultimately decides if the official should be removed from office.

So no, it's not unusual for a Supreme Court to remove a member of the executive from power without a prior criminal conviction.

What is unusual is that the proceedings in Israel were initiated by a rather small number of people from an advocacy group. In the countries I examined, the proceedings can only be initiated by a parliamentary (super-)majority.

1: This happens in a joint session, so no separate majorities are necessary, just an absolute majority of all parliamentarians regardless their chamber.

Improve this answer
11
  • 1
    Thanks for the update but I think the question is asking if a court can remove them on their own and not after action by an elected body such as a parliament voting on it.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jul 26, 2023 at 13:17
  • 1
    @JoeW I think the "but they all require charges to be brought by the legislature" at the top of the answer makes it a valid answer to the question : if you interpret it narrowly, as you do, then the answer is there, and if you interpret it broadly (or if you have curiosity), the rest of the answer is there for that.
    – Gouvernathor
    Commented Jul 26, 2023 at 22:27
  • 2
    @JoeW Under that logic, courts can not send people to prison, because they need to be indicted first. I am not aware of any jurisdiction where courts can act without a case being brought by someone else. The difference here is that that someone can only be the legislature. If you think that requirement is too restrictive, you can read the answer as "No, a Supreme Court can not remove a head of government". I want to leave that determination up to the reader
    – xyldke
    Commented Jul 27, 2023 at 6:37
  • 1
    "Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways: (1) by the government attorney; (2) by the court that impaneled it; and (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a member’s personal attention." Source: flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/…
    – phoog
    Commented Jul 27, 2023 at 8:48
  • 1
    Well I think in practice the grand jury is frequently a rubber stamp for the prosecutor, but in theory at least it represents a check by the judicial branch on the prosecutor's (executive branch) power. It's certainly true in practice that the prosecutor's initiative drives the whole process.
    – phoog
    Commented Jul 27, 2023 at 9:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .