Ministers inch closer to firing Baharav-Miara, legality of decision unclear
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara attends the Knesset in Jerusalem. November 18, 2024. (photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
Israel’s cabinet moves to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, sparking legal challenges and potential Supreme Court intervention.
The ministerial committee formed to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara published its formal recommendation to that effect on Thursday, after she refused to attend a hearing due to what she argued was an illegal process.
The committee, chaired by Diaspora Affairs MinisterAmichai Chikli, wrote that its recommendation was based on “fundamental and ongoing disagreements and a lack of effective cooperation” with the A-G, as well as “delays and deficiencies in executing tasks and priorities” and “serial rulings” that government policies were “not legally viable.”
The ministers also cited “adversarial and disrespectful conduct” and “systematically voicing public criticism against the government and its ministers” as reasons for her dismissal.
The ministers convened at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem and waited for the attorney-general “over an hour,” according to the meeting’s protocol. The committee will reconvene on Sunday in order to approve the recommendation.
The government plenary will then vote, likely next Sunday (July 27), on whether or not to accept the recommendation. Once the decision is final, it will likely be challenged in theHigh Court, and Baharav-Miara will likely continue serving in her position in the meantime.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Gali Baharav-Miara. Last week, the A-G and her office issued a sharply critical advisory opinion on a government decision to change the traditional firing process of the attorney-general, one of many back-and-forths Baharav-Miara has had with the government. (credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)
The procedure was ‘fundamentally flawed’
The committee set the initial hearing for Baharav-Miara on Tuesday, but she refused to attend, arguing that the hearing was for “appearances only” and the result was “known in advance.”
In response to the committee’s decision to give her a second chance at a hearing on Thursday morning, the attorney-general announced on Wednesday that she again refused to attend, writing that the invitation to a second hearing did not change the fact that the procedure was “fundamentally flawed.”
“A situation in which, from now on, the government can end the tenure of an attorney-general without oversight and out of foreign and, heaven forbid, corrupt considerations, including illegitimate influence on ongoing criminal proceedings, causes serious harm to the rule of law,” Baharav-Miara wrote.
The government formed the committee, called the “Ministerial Committee on the Methods and Conditions for Terminating the Tenure of the Attorney General,” on June 8, after failing to fire Baharav-Miara via the procedure that was set over 20 years ago.
As well as Chikli, the committee is composed of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister MK Itamar Ben-Gvir, Science and Technology Minister MK Gila Gamliel, and outgoing Religious Affairs Minister Michael Malkieli.
On Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg rejected an injunction request by a number of NGOs to cancel the hearing. Sohlberg wrote that the court would only rule on the matter once it was “irreversible,” meaning after the committee’s decision.
In its decision on Tuesday to summon Baharav-Miara to a second hearing, the committee wrote, “The position of the Ministerial Committee is that the attorney-general’s decision to take the law into her own hands and not appear before the committee – especially after requesting an interim order from the Supreme Court to block the hearing, which the court rejected – constitutes contempt of court and undermines the standing of an elected government in Israel. This is particularly troubling given her role as the authorized interpreter of the law, after the Supreme Court ruled contrary to her position.”
Led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government has blamed Baharav-Miara for intentionally issuing restrictive legal opinions in order to trip up and eventually topple the government.
The A-G has argued in her defense that the government has repeatedly attempted to act illegally, and that it was her statutory duty to advise it on the limits of the law and prevent it from acting illegally.
She has also stressed that the attorney-general was an independent gatekeeper and was not required to obey every government wish and command.
The issue of the method of firing the A-G is especially complex, as ministers have disregarded her opinion on the matter due to what they claimed was a conflict of interest.
Already in March, Justice Minister Yariv Levin initiated a government decision by expressing no confidence in Baharav-Miara. However, Levin failed to assemble the required committee to proceed with her removal, which needed to include a retired Supreme Court justice as chair, appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice and with the approval of the justice minister; a former justice minister or attorney-general, chosen by the government; an MK, chosen by the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; a lawyer, chosen by the Israel Bar Association (IBA); and a legal academic, selected by the deans of Israel’s law faculties.
Levin took the lead since Netanyahu is not allowed to deal with issues that could affect his ongoing criminal trial. The attorney-general is the head of Israel’s law enforcement apparatus and oversees the state prosecution, and her removal could pave the way for a new attorney general more inclined to do away with the charges against the prime minister.
