The verdict on Mazuz

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz is about to end a tenure of six years in his highly influential post. Lacking experience in criminal law, he started off with a hasty and incorrect decision not to indict prime minister Ariel Sharon in the Greek Island affair, rejecting the recommendations of the highly experienced then-state prosecutor and now Supreme Court Justice Edna Arbel. His decision jibed with an attitude that seemingly played down the importance of prosecuting public figures on charges of governmental corruption.

Nevertheless, Mazuz later internalized the message conveyed by the Supreme Court, presided over by then-chief justice Aharon Barak, in convicting the former director general of the Prime Minister's Office, Shimon Sheves - thus stressing that the criminal justice system must be used as a weapon in the struggle against corruption in high places.

Deciding whether to prosecute - this is the issue the attorney general addresses that is most in the public eye, and the one that attracts most attention. Mazuz is therefore departing with the reputation of a fighter against public corruption, worthy of the utmost esteem.

Indeed, on the criminal level, the balance tips in his favor, although it is hard to say he did enough to protect the rights of garden-variety interrogated and accused persons. The indictment against former prime minister Ehud Olmert, former finance minister Abraham Hirchson, and former labor and welfare minister Shlomo Benizri are nothing to sniff at. Those indictments, reached thanks to the assistance and support of State Prosecutor Moshe Lador, demanded courage and independence from the influence of politicians.

However, the AG's actions in the criminal-law sphere in general have sometimes evoked surprise, and cannot be allowed to go without criticism. For one thing, he was the prime mover in attempts to reach an unusual plea bargain with former president Moshe Katsav. And he was hasty in indicting former justice minister Haim Ramon for his "ministerial kiss," and after the trial Mazuz opposed launching a serious investigation into the roles of the police and the prosecution in concealing from the defense the fact that a wiretap had been carried out.

The picture is still more problematic when it comes to both the nature of the counsel Mazuz gave to the cabinet and government ministries, and the positions the state took in opposing petitions to the High Court of Justice. Three examples of this are when the court canceled the "Intifada law," which denied Palestinians the right to sue for damages caused by the army in non-warlike operations; when only the narrowest majority of six justices to five upheld the legality of an amendment to the Citizenship Law, absolutely barring family reunification in Israel between Palestinians and Israelis ; and when the court annulled the total ban on Palestinian use of Highway No. 443, because it was disproportionately severe in security terms. Another strange position defended by the state involved the private prisons law, which was struck down by the High Court.

Although Mazuz is not responsible for Israel's overall policies in the occupied territories, since drafting policy is not within his purview, one cannot ignore the timidity of his voice in responding to the Goldstone Report, or his support for certain positions enabling disproportionate infringement of basic rights. Nor can he wash his hands of responsibility for the increasingly salient phenomenon of people disobeying various High Court directives.

There's not enough room here to discuss the entire gamut of the AG's functioning as the legal adviser to the government, the head of the prosecution and the state's representative in the courts - which add up to a surfeit of powers that embody a built-in conflict of interests. Mazuz ardently defended this state of affairs, although it imposed a heavy burden upon him and led to unreasonable delays in making decisions and in moving certain matters forward.

On the eve of his departure, he chose to defend public servants from cabinet ministers and directors general, and he complained of the latter's inability to follow an orderly process of decision-making and their tendency to find someone convenient to blame. He himself worked long and hard, but seems to have fallen victim to a lack of experience in criminal cases, to a desire to be involved in too many areas, and to the unreasonable burdens borne by the holder of this important and multifaceted position.

One feels that only if Mazuz issues a detailed report on the counsel he gave as AG will it be possible to make a comprehensive and intelligent assessment of his activities - including those that were concealed from the public's eye more than they should have been.