Attorney General’s Office calls move to let ministerial panel approve her dismissal a ‘tectonic shift’ that will harm role’s independence, ‘remove oversight over governmental power’
In a highly controversial step, the cabinet approved a government resolution on Sunday allowing a new ministerial committee to approve the dismissal of the attorney general, ignoring the Attorney General’s Office warning earlier in the day that the move is illegal. The cabinet approval circumvents the previous procedure, which required a professional, statutory committee to be consulted before such a decision could be made.
Immediately following approval of the resolution, Justice Minister Yariv Levin sent a letter to the five-member ministerial committee asking for their recommendation on whether or not to fire Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, and asking it to hold a hearing as part of that process.
According to the new government resolution, which amends a resolution from 2000, the government can ask a five-member ministerial committee to oversee the removal of the attorney general, rather than consulting the statutory committee, made up of legal professionals and public figures.
The ministerial committee members, who are selected by the government, can give their recommendation and then pass the decision back to the full cabinet, which would need 75 percent of cabinet ministers to vote in favor of dismissing the attorney general.
The committee will comprise Diaspora Affairs Minister Amihai Chikli, who will chair; Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich; National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir; Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel; and Religious Services Minister Michael Malkieli.
It is unclear when the new ministerial committee will convene, although Ben Gvir called on Chikli to hold a meeting Monday and bring Baharav-Miara in for a hearing already this week.
The government and the attorney general have been in conflict since the government was sworn in at the end of 2022, with the government accusing her of serially thwarting its policies and actions, and Baharav-Miara accusing the government of acting unlawfully and advancing unconstitutional legislation.
The authorization of the resolution on Sunday is a highly consequential step, given that the attorney general is considered to be one of the key guardians of law enforcement and the rule of law in the country, whose appointment has long been conducted in an apolitical manner through the statutory committee.
The Attorney General’s Office noted as much earlier on Sunday in a legal opinion on the resolution, asserting that the new method of firing the attorney general would politicize the position and make the attorney general dependent on the government’s goodwill. It asserted that the change was being made simply because the government had encountered difficulties in completing the previously established process of firing her, and was “changing the rules of the game” mid-game.
Government watchdog groups immediately filed petitions to the High Court. One of them, the Israel Democracy Guard organization, said that the resolution was passed out of “ulterior motives” and would “harm the independence of the institution of the Attorney General’s Office.”
As with the cabinet resolution to dismiss outgoing Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, it is possible that the High Court will issue a temporary injunction against the resolution, preventing the government from using the new method for firing the attorney general until it adjudicates the petitions against the measure.
Levin set in motion the process of firing Baharav-Miara in March, when the cabinet voted unanimously in favor of a no-confidence motion against her. But he has been unable to convene the statutory committee laid out in the 2000 cabinet resolution, since no former justice minister or attorney general, one of the four committee members, was found to sit on the panel, while the Knesset also failed to approve an MK to sit on the committee.
Because of the ongoing and severe disputes between the government and Baharav-Miara, Levin proposed a new method for dismissing the attorney general, noting specifically that the original process had run aground.
He also said that all previous justice ministers and attorneys general had made public comments about firing Baharav-Miara or about the government in a manner that meant they could not deal with the issue in an unbiased manner.
Levin wrote in the explanatory notes to the resolution that it was necessary since all cabinet ministers had expressed no confidence in Baharav-Miara in March, and there was no practical possibility of cooperation with her at present.
“The argumentative actions of the attorney general, which are not in line with legal positions previously presented by the Attorney General’s Office, have paralyzed the government’s work on a number of essential matters,” wrote Levin. He added that the problem was even more acute due to the ongoing war “when security needs require more than ever proper work and close and effective cooperation between the government and the attorney general.”
In a legal opinion written by Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon about Levin’s new system on Sunday, he described the resolution as “an extreme expression of a series of moves recently promoted whose purpose is to remove limits and oversight over governmental power… while politicizing the public service, and harming the neutrality of [law enforcement] gatekeepers.”
He said that the new system would therefore constitute a “tectonic shift” in the status of the attorney general, which he noted had been “an independent and apolitical position” since the founding of the state.
“It involves the removal of a central and necessary institutional guarantee to ensure the attorney general’s independent functioning, which is essential to protecting the rule of law,” he continued.
Limon wrote that because of these problems the resolution was “unlawful” and could not be adopted.
Limon argued that there was little logic in creating a new system for firing the attorney general on the basis that former justice ministers and attorneys general were opposed to the move, when the ministerial committee established by the new system is composed of ministers who have all already called for Baharav-Miara’s dismissal.
He also called into question the timing of the move, pointing out that the Attorney General’s Office is about to submit two positions to the High Court regarding petitions critical to the government: the first being the state’s response to petitions demanding that enforcement measures be taken against ultra-Orthodox yeshiva students who do not comply with military conscription orders, and the second being the state’s response to petitions against legislation that greatly politicized the judicial appointments process.
As reported by The Times of Israel