October 7 investigation: High Court freezes core State Comptroller audits, seeks clarification

In response, the State Comptroller’s Office said it would act in accordance with the court’s decision, while stressing that it has conducted dozens of audits related to October 7 over nearly two years and collected extensive materials aimed at drawing lessons and providing answers to the public.

According to the comptroller’s statement, the court’s interim decision requires Englman to freeze work on eight specific audits, while the broader activity of the office continues. The State Comptroller’s Office said it considers its work independent and objective, and warned that without publication of audit reports, systemic failures, including those whose correction could save lives, would remain unaddressed.

The High Court’s ruling does not terminate the comptroller’s review, nor does it rule definitively on the limits of his authority.

Rather, the court ordered a temporary suspension of the most sensitive audits while it examines whether the comptroller’s actions exceed his statutory mandate and infringe on the rights of those under review.

First, the comptroller must halt work on audits that touch the core strategic and operational failures of October 7, including decision-making at the political and military levels, intelligence assessments, and responsibility for the events themselves. These subjects, the court indicated, may fall within the exclusive domain of a future state commission of inquiry.

Second, the court is asking the comptroller to justify his legal authority to conduct audits of this nature under the Basic Law: The State Comptroller – particularly where the reviews involve national security policy, wartime decision-making, and the potential personal responsibility of senior officials.

Third, the justices are examining whether the manner in which the audits were conducted meets procedural fairness requirements, including whether those under review were given a meaningful opportunity to respond before draft findings were formulated, and whether continuing the audits could prejudice due process or contaminate future investigative proceedings.

To that end, the court gave Englman until February 1 to submit a detailed response addressing these questions.

The ruling also makes it clear that the comptroller’s office is not prohibited from conducting audits unrelated to these core issues, and it does not preclude oversight of administrative, civilian, or logistical failures that fall outside the frozen audits.

On January 7, 2024, Englman announced the launch of a broad review into the failures surrounding October 7, opening audits into some 50 issues involving roughly 200 audit managers. He said the review would apply to all levels of responsibility – political, military, and civilian – and would seek to assign personal accountability.

Publication of the core findings was delayed for roughly 15 months following earlier court orders and understandings with the IDF and the Shin Bet, which temporarily halted work on the most sensitive audits. The comptroller’s office has said that work on those audits resumed earlier this year.

Petitions against the review were filed by the Military Defense Counsel – responsible for representing IDF service members – and the Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG), a position echoed by the Attorney-General’s Office.

The petitioners argue that examining national security policy and personal responsibility at senior levels exceeds the comptroller’s authority and risks infringing on the rights and reputations of individuals, before a state commission of inquiry is established.

The comptroller countered that the law grants him broad authority to audit all public bodies, including the government and the security establishment, and that his review fills an accountability vacuum in the absence of a state commission of inquiry.

Coalition lawmakers sharply criticized the ruling. Likud MK Avichai Boaron accused the High Court of ignoring the Basic Law: The State Comptroller, which grants the comptroller authority to examine “any matter he sees fit,” and called on Englman to continue his investigation.

By contrast, MQG welcomed the decision, saying an event of such magnitude requires investigation by a state commission of inquiry alone. Families of victims and hostages, represented by the October Council, also backed the ruling, calling for a commission with full powers and independence.

The October Council, which joined the petition and represents families of victims of October 7 and hostages, also welcomed the interim ruling. The council called the ruling a “correct and responsible decision” in light of the scale of the disaster. It said that the gravest failure in the country’s history cannot be examined through a limited administrative review.

“Only a state commission of inquiry, with full powers and absolute independence, can reach the truth and determine responsibility,” the council said.

Bereaved families, survivors, families of hostages, residents of the Gaza border communities, and reservists, it added, are demanding the truth, “not whitewashing and not substitutes.”

“A state commission of inquiry – now,” their statement concluded.

Opposition leader and Yesh Atid chairman Yair Lapid said the decision confirmed his longstanding warning that the comptroller was not the appropriate body to investigate October 7, arguing that such reviews risk contaminating evidence and undermining a future commission.

The government has meanwhile moved to establish a political commission of inquiry, a step critics argue lacks independence.

The State Comptroller’s Office said it would comply with the court’s interim ruling and submit its response by the court-ordered deadline.