MQG will join as “Amicus Curiae” in legal proceedings against the municipality of Afula

The Movement for Quality Government will join as “Amicus Curiae” in legal proceedings of Shalom Shlomo, a member of Afula council, against Afula mayor and the municipality of Afula itself, on his dismissal from four committees as representative of the opposition.

The Nazareth District Court approved joining the Movement for Quality Government as “amicus curiae” for the legal proceedings of the member of the opposition council Afula, Shalom Shlomo, about his dismissal from four council committees where he serves as a representative of the opposition – Tenders Committee, a committee to select senior executives, the Finance Committee, and the planning and building committee. Amicus curiae enables a group, which is not a party to the case, to appear and assist the court.

Shalom Shlomo was dismissed from four municipal committees after raising claims against the improper conduct of the Tender Committee, where he is a member, in front of various authorities. In his petition Mr. Shlomo claimed that he was dismissed by extraneous considerations – vindictiveness.

The Movement believes the court in its decision should consider public interests and aspects relating to the role and position of councilors in general and opposition members in particular, as “Gatekeepers” in the local government, whose duty is to serve the public and to provide a functioning, proper and appropriate public system, and to ensure the “Gatekeepers” from the minority group of the council could do their duties without fear of harassment from the majority group, which would lead to diminish in their status and rights.

The Movement pointed out indications which show Mr. Shlomo’s status and rights as a member of council and opposition, have been harmed, including the fact his dismissal was carried out abruptly, without adequate factual basis, without allowing him the full right to be heard, and without suffice clarity of the situation. The decision was disproportionate and not suited to the circumstances. In the movements stance, these circumstances justify ordering the annulment of Shalom Shlomo’s dismissal. The movement attributes great importance as to joining this procedure as amicus curiae, which it has no direct interest in the case, but does have expertise and interest the subject, and can contribute to the process by shedding light on important public aspects involved.