High Court rejects petition, A-G summons set for Monday as dismissal efforts ramp up - Sarah Ben Nun

 

by Sarah Ben Nun

Ministers leading the ministerial committee set to convene tomorrow called the situation where the government’s own legal representative opposition “absurd.”

 

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.

(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

 

High Court of Justice Judge Noam Sohlberg rejected on Sunday an injunction request to cancel the planned hearing set for Monday for Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara in the efforts toward her dismissal, allowing it to take place.

A ministerial committee is scheduled to convene tomorrow to discuss her dismissal, the hastened solution to her firing that has been pushed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, after he failed to fill the positions needed for the public-professional committee that would oversee the process, hand in hand with the government.

Levin’s decision to hand off the process to ministers has faced fierce criticism for politicizing a delicate and sensitive position. Proponents argue that the situation is so dire as to make the work relationship between the government and the attorney-general obsolete, and that since the public-professional committee could not be filled, this is the next necessary step.

The attorney-general is both the government’s legal adviser and interpreter of the law, and is also its legal representative – its lawyer. Legally, to hire or fire the A-G, an external public-professional committee must convene and provide an expert opinion to the government before it makes a decision.

The committee includes a retired Supreme Court justice as chair, appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice and by 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.

Israeli attorney general Gali Baharav-Miara attends the funeral of former Judge Elisheva Barak-Ussoskin at Kiryat Shaul Cemetery in Tel Aviv, December 11, 2024. (credit: AVSHALOM SASSONI/FLASH90)

The term of an attorney-general is six years. If the government wishes to end the term early, specific conditions have to be met – such as if there are consistent and severe disagreements between the A-G and the government, rendering their working relationship unproductive.

Levin has not succeeded in filling the positions for this committee. Earlier on Sunday, the government argued that it is unreasonable to force the government to work with a legal adviser “that is actively working against the government’s policies.”

The ministerial committee set to convene on Monday is led by Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli, who authored the Sunday government decision alongside Levin.

They called the situation where the government’s own legal representative is in such strong opposition to it that it offers separate representation – “absurd.” Such a scenario has taken place several times, in contrast to the hundreds of legislation items that the advisory does approve.

“We expect the court to acknowledge this absurdity. The attorney-general worked systematically to cut the cord between her office and the government, we now expect the court to finish it off,” reads the decision.

Part of the issue, which has been long-present in legal debate, is that the attorney-general wears two hats: it heads the prosecution, meaning it represents the government’s position in significant cases, and it also is the chief legal adviser to the government and considered the weightiest interpreter of the law.

When her interpretation of the law differs from the government, her office can’t represent it, leading to the sticky situation the two authorities are in today.

The decision did not address the attorney-general’s position, concretized in several advisory opinions over the past few weeks, that the legislation to dismiss her has far-reaching consequences for the legal advisory as a whole and for whoever her successor may be – it would politicize a powerful key position, generally considered the only checks on power on the government, besides the courts.

'Serious flaws' in dismissal attempts

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG) said the government’s response “clearly reveals the serious flaws” in its dismissal attempts.

“Instead of presenting a real legal justification for changing the mechanism, the government is trying to explain why it needs to dismiss the attorney general right now and why it needs to do so by changing the rules of the game. The response indicates that the government is aware of the weakness of the move from a legal perspective and is trying to justify a decision that was made in a clear conflict of interest,” it explained.

Later in the day, Judge David Mintz also ordered another hearing on the matter, to be presided over by five justices.

Sarah Ben Nun

Source: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-860820

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter