High Court Blocks Effort to Remove AG Under New Process

High Court's Recommendation Sparks Debate Over Attorney General Firing Process

The High Court of Justice has raised questions about the current government’s approach to firing the attorney general, suggesting a return to an older process that was in place before 2000. This move could signal the court's disapproval of the new method the government is using to remove current Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

In a recent decision, Judge Noam Sohlberg rejected a petition requesting an urgent hearing on the government’s plan to hold a vote to dismiss Baharav-Miara. His comments indicated that the court believes there may be a more appropriate way to handle the situation.

Sohlberg proposed that the government consider reverting to the framework established by the Shamgar Committee, which provided guidelines for appointing and dismissing the attorney general in 1998. This framework was later adopted through a cabinet resolution in 2000.

Under the 2000 resolution, the appointment of the attorney general involved a public, professional committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge. The committee also included a former attorney general or justice minister, a representative from the Israel Bar Association, a legal academic from an Israeli university, and a member of the Knesset.

If the government wanted to fire an attorney general under this system, it had to seek the committee’s advice on whether there were valid grounds for dismissal. However, in March of this year, the government attempted to use this process but struggled to find a former attorney general or justice minister willing to serve on the committee.

As a result, the cabinet passed a resolution in June to replace the 2000 system with a five-member ministerial committee. This new panel was tasked with recommending whether the attorney general should be fired. Last week, the ministerial committee recommended that the government proceed with the dismissal.

The cabinet was expected to hold a vote on Sunday, but the meeting was canceled. A vote could take place next Monday. However, Judge Sohlberg has already ruled that if the cabinet votes to dismiss Baharav-Miara, the decision will not take effect until the High Court rules on petitions challenging the new dismissal process.

Sohlberg noted that the court views the new process as problematic. He stated that his ruling was based on the “difficulties highlighted by the petitioners” and “the apparent chances of the petition.” Despite this, the government is preparing to bypass any potential court rulings.

According to reports, Justice Minister Yariv Levin expects the government to stop working with Baharav-Miara once the cabinet votes to fire her. This would mean she would no longer be invited to cabinet meetings or security cabinet discussions, even though the court has not yet issued its final ruling.

This development highlights the growing tension between the government and the judiciary over the proper procedures for removing the attorney general. The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for the balance of power in Israeli governance.