In a move drawing sharp criticism, the cabinet approved a new resolution on Sunday that permits a ministerial committee—rather than a professional, independent body—to initiate proceedings to dismiss the attorney general. This decision came despite a warning earlier that day from the Attorney General’s Office declaring the proposal illegal. The change sidesteps a procedure that had required the input of a statutory committee of legal experts and public representatives before such a step could be taken.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin wasted no time after the vote, immediately sending a letter to the newly formed committee, urging them to evaluate whether Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara should be removed from her post. He also asked the committee to conduct a formal hearing as part of its deliberation.
Under the revised resolution, which alters a policy from the year 2000, the authority to recommend the attorney general’s dismissal shifts to a five-member panel of ministers appointed by the government. This committee replaces the earlier requirement of consultation with a neutral body consisting of professionals with legal credentials.
Once the committee has reached a conclusion, it can submit its recommendation to the cabinet, which would then require a supermajority—75 percent of ministers—to vote in favor in order to remove the attorney general.
The ministers chosen to serve on the committee are Diaspora Affairs Minister Amihai Chikli, who will serve as chairman; Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich; National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir; Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel; and Religious Services Minister Michael Malkieli.
It remains uncertain when the committee will convene, but Ben Gvir called on Chikli to hold a session as early as Monday and to bring Baharav-Miara in for a hearing within the week.
Tensions between the attorney general and the current government have been ongoing since the coalition took office at the end of 2022. Government officials have repeatedly accused her of obstructing their agenda, while Baharav-Miara has maintained that many of the government’s initiatives violate the law or breach constitutional norms.
The resolution approved Sunday is seen as a pivotal and unprecedented development. The attorney general plays a central role in safeguarding legal standards and ensuring the integrity of law enforcement, and the position has historically been filled through a nonpartisan, merit-based process.
In a legal opinion released earlier on Sunday, the Attorney General’s Office warned that the proposed change would erode the independence of the office and subject it to political pressures. It stated the move was designed only because the government faced obstacles in navigating the established legal pathway to remove her and accused the coalition of “changing the rules of the game” midstream.
Civil rights organizations quickly responded with petitions to the High Court of Justice. The Israel Democracy Guard, one of the petitioners, said the resolution stemmed from “ulterior motives” and would seriously “harm the independence of the institution of the Attorney General’s Office.”
The High Court may issue an interim order, as it did regarding the dismissal process for Shin Bet director Ronen Bar, blocking the implementation of this new mechanism until the legal challenges are resolved.
The effort to oust Baharav-Miara began formally in March when the cabinet unanimously passed a no-confidence vote against her. However, Levin was unable to activate the statutory process outlined in the original 2000 resolution, as he could not recruit a past justice minister or attorney general to serve on the committee, and the Knesset failed to appoint a member to the panel.
In response to those setbacks, Levin introduced the new framework, pointing out that the original method had reached a dead end. He also claimed that previous justice officials and attorneys general had made public remarks indicating bias against the government, making them unfit to weigh in on the matter.
In the rationale accompanying the resolution, Levin emphasized that the March vote had shown unanimous cabinet distrust in Baharav-Miara, asserting that productive collaboration with her had become impossible.
“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,” Levin wrote. He further stressed that the situation was exacerbated by the ongoing war, saying it demanded close and efficient coordination between the attorney general and government officials.
Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon authored a detailed opinion criticizing Levin’s initiative, describing it 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.”
Limon argued that the new procedure would fundamentally alter the nature of the attorney general’s role, which had been “an independent and apolitical position” since the establishment 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 wrote.
Limon concluded that the resolution was “unlawful” and could not be implemented legally.
He also questioned the reasoning behind creating a new panel based on supposed bias among previous officials, while stacking the new committee with ministers who had all publicly called for Baharav-Miara’s removal.
Finally, Limon raised concerns about the timing of the move, as the Attorney General’s Office is preparing two significant responses to the High Court. One relates to petitions demanding enforcement of draft laws for chareidi yeshiva students, and the other concerns legal challenges to legislation that dramatically increased political influence over judicial appointments.
{Matzav.com}