Justice Minister Yariv Levin (left) and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara in a composite image. (Flash90)
The government told the High Court of Justice on Wednesday that it revamped the process for firing an attorney general because it did not believe any of the 21 living former justice ministers and attorneys general would have supported the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, which would have prevented her removal under the previous system.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli said all the erstwhile senior judicial officials were either unwilling to sit on the originally prescribed advisory committee, had already expressed an opinion about Baharav-Miara’s dismissal, or the government deemed them hostile to its agenda.
The ministers were responding to comments made by High Court Justice Noam Sohlberg in a technical decision on Tuesday, in which he recommended the government abandon its new dismissal process and revert to the original method, which calls for a public, professional advisory committee with a former justice minister or attorney general as a member.
Without stating so outright, the ministers essentially rejected the proposal by Sohlberg, a conservative, and insisted that the government had the right to change the dismissal process in light of its difficulties in staffing the original advisory committee.
Sohlberg’s Tuesday comments marked the second time he has hinted that the court does not take a favorable view of the government’s new process for firing an attorney general. He has already decided that any decision to fire her will not take effect until the High Court has a chance to issue a final ruling on petitions against the process.
Cabinet ministers have threatened to ignore a court ruling against the new process, with Levin prepared to boycott Baharav-Miara after the government fires her, even before the court rules on the petitions.
In March, the government initiated the process of firing the attorney general through the recommendation of the professional committee used to appoint her in 2022, in keeping with the terms of a cabinet resolution on the matter passed in 2000.
But in June, after failing to staff that committee with a former justice minister or attorney general as required under the original process, the cabinet passed a new resolution establishing a five-member ministerial committee that could make the recommendation instead.
Writing to the court on Wednesday, Levin and Chiki noted that there are seven living former attorneys general, but that they had all signed onto a public position paper arguing against dismissing Baharav-Miara, in March when the government began the initial dismissal process.
This, the ministers said, meant they could not be objective members on the dismissal advisory committee. They did not mention that all five members of the newly formed ministerial committee for dismissing Baharav-Miara had expressed their opinion in favor of firing her before the committee was established.
Levin additionally said that he had found that 11 of the 14 former justice ministers were either “prevented from filling the role,” had expressed themselves publicly against firing Baharav-Miara, or were “clear opponents of the government’s policies.”
There were therefore only three relevant candidates, the ministers insisted, but despite Levin’s efforts to convince them they refused to sit on the committee. The former justice ministers include, among others, Ayelet Shaked, a right-wing proponent of judicial reform; Daniel Friedmann, who has expressed support for some of the government’s judicial overhaul agenda, including splitting the role of the attorney general; Haim Ramon, who also backed the government’s judicial overhaul program; and Moshe Nissim and Meir Sheetrit, both formerly of the ruling Likud party.
The ministers said that as a result, the government was left with no choice but to change the dismissal process, which they argued it was legally entitled to do under the terms of the 1959 Law for the Civil Service and the 1981 Law of Interpretations.
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, one of the organizations that has petitioned the High Court against the government’s new dismissal process, said in response that the ministers’ update to the court demonstrated that the new method had been designed specifically to fit Baharav-Miara, and constituted “drawing the target around the arrow” in order to achieve the desired result.
“The government’s shameful response to Judge Sohlberg’s proposal contains an incriminating admission — they are essentially admitting that they changed the dismissal mechanism because they were unable to remove the attorney general through the existing legal process,” said the organization.
Yesh Atid MK Karine Elharrar wrote on X: “If you didn’t find members for the committee who will agree to the dismissal its worthwhile understanding what everyone else understands: Dismissing the attorney general is an illegitimate process designed entirely to harm the rule of law, and no thinking person will give a rubber stamp to such illegal actions.”
The move is highly controversial, since the role of attorney general is considered one of the key roles safeguarding the rule of law in Israel, owing to its power to determine whether the government’s actions comply with the law.
Read more on The Times of Israel
