Israeli gov't overrides legal objections, approves acceleration of A-G's dismissal

The government approved, in its weekly meeting on Sunday morning, a proposal by Justice Minister Yariv Levin that will significantly speed up the process of firing Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not present during the discussion preceding the vote due to a conflict-of-interest agreement that bars him from taking part in any procedure that could affect his ongoing criminal trial. The attorney-general heads the state’s law enforcement apparatus and, as such, oversees the State Attorney’s Office, which is prosecuting Netanyahu.

Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon wrote in an advisory opinion published prior to the government meeting that Levin’s proposal was illegal and contradicted High Court of Justice legal precedent. The government approved it, regardless.

Appointing, firing of A-G based on independent committee recommendation

The government has not been able to consult with the committee since the Knesset has refrained from appointing its representative to the committee, and no former justice ministers or A-Gs were willing to join it, either.

Levin’s new proposal is to change the method of firing the A-G by replacing the independent appointment committee with a committee made up of ministers appointed by the justice minister. The ministers will conduct an arraignment for the A-G, after which a vote to fire her can be brought before the government plenary, which must pass with the support of at least 75% of all ministers.

According to the proposal, the new committee will be chaired by Diaspora Minister Amichai Chikli, and its other members will be Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, National Security Minister MK Itamar Ben-Gvir, Innovation and Technology Minister MK Gila Gamliel, and Religious Affairs Minister Michael Malkieli. The proposal did not explain why these particular ministers were chosen.

In a preamble to his proposal, Levin acknowledged that one reason to change the firing method was his inability to man the existing committee. However, the justice minister argued that the main justification for the change was that the A-G’s conduct has “paralyzed” parts of the government and that the worsening of the relations made the need to consult with the appointment committee “redundant.”

Gov't voted against Baharav-Miara in March

A spokesperson for Levin did not respond last week to a request for examples as to the “worsening” of the relations between the government and the A-G since March. Levin’s proposal came a day before Baharav-Miara was set to hold an oversight meeting regarding the implementation of a High Court ruling from June 2024, which requires that it draft eligible haredim into the IDF. However, the spokesperson said that the timing of Levin’s new proposal was unrelated.

Immediately following its approval, Levin sent out summons to members of the newly formed committee requesting that it convene as soon as possible. In a separate document to the ministers, Levin gave a number of examples of what he claimed was the AG’s “contempt” for the government. One of these was her determination following a High Court injunction against the government’s decision to fire Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, which meant that Netanyahu could not interview new candidates for the position. This opinion, which Levin called “extreme,” was not accepted by the High Court.

Smotrich said in a statement, “We will conduct a professional and fair process to examine the attorney-general’s performance and evaluate her claims, ultimately recommending to the government whether to support or oppose her dismissal. The process will be carried out with an open heart and a willing spirit, while understanding the centrality of the government’s trust in the attorney-general, her authority, and her performance.”

Ben-Gvir, in a video statement, called on Chikli to convene the newly formed committee “this week.”

“We will, of course, listen to all the claims of the attorney-general, but for the sake of the State of Israel, this decision must be made as quickly as possible,” Ben-Gvir said.

In his legal opinion on Sunday morning, Limon wrote that annulling the A-G appointment process that has applied for the past quarter century would, in effect, constitute “the removal of a central institutional safeguard that ensures the A-G’s independence, which is critical to protect the rule of law.” He warned that this would taint and politicize every aspect of the government’s legal advice.

Prior to the year 2000, the appointment of the attorney-general was in the government’s hands. However, the standard of professionalism and legal proficiency was so high that the justice minister, who would propose the candidate, could not present one who had not qualified themselves to be appointed as a Supreme Court justice, explained the Israel Democracy Institute. As such, the government had the power to fire the attorney-general as well.

In 1997, then-justice minister Tzachi Hanegbi directed the creation of the Shamgar Commission, which was tasked with examining the appointment procedure. Changes recommended by the commission led to the changing of the method and procedure of appointment in 2000. The signature change was the creation of the aforementioned appointment committee. This procedure, intended to safeguard and ensure the attorney-general’s independence, is what is in place today.

According to the 2000 decision, each A-G appointment is for six years, but if the government can find and prove that one of the conditions set has failed to be met by the person, it is authorized to veer toward dismissal, provided that the decision is made in tandem with the committee. Another criterion for favoring dismissal is if the differences of opinion are so large that they prevent effective cooperation between the judiciary and the government.

The referral then goes from the justice minister to the committee, which discusses the matter. At this point, the attorney-general can present arguments in his or her defense. The committee then presents its position to the government. This system is what ensures the independence of the attorney-general, Limon explained, as this person holds powerful safeguards for democracy.

Limon noted that the premise that the attorney-general’s position must remain independent and not subject to political influences was something that the Shamgar Commission understood – and so dedicated a significant part of its report to the hiring procedure, taking care to recommend external guarantors to the process.

Limon’s letter highlighted in particular the consistent legal precedent that has honored the appointment and dismissal of the attorney-general. One of the effects of this is to show how it was respected across different prime ministers and different political leanings over the years. This makes Levin’s move so much more abrasive.

The fact that Levin’s new proposal “is made up of government ministers” effectively “cancels the existing requirement for the input of an untouched, objective, and professional authority,” Limon wrote. He added that the proposal itself lacks the professional and legal foundations it needs to annul the Shamgar Commission precedent, and that it appears to be the culmination of months-long failures to fire the attorney-general by Levin.

Levin’s proposal cancels the requirement to consult the committee. The proposal reads, “This change became necessary due to the severe distrust the government has toward the attorney-general, as expressed in a government decision from March 23.” Therefore, it continued, the dismissal must take place soon.

Very similar arguments were made by the government when it pushed to fire Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar: A lack of trust that impedes productive work.

Bar argued that the distrust began when the agency started to probe Qatari ties to figures close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024 – not, as the government claimed, on October 7, 2023, with the surprise Hamas massacre attack.

The High Court explained in its decision on the matter that a government must acknowledge the weight of previous decisions when it chooses to make ones that are in opposition to them – and that it must truly question the necessity of such a decision, or at least if it should be carried out in this manner.

The court added that proper procedure was not followed with Bar, and that this showcases, better than anything else, the move’s grave illegitimacy.

Limon wrote on Sunday, “The proposal’s reasonings point unequivocally to personal interests and indicate that it is here to ‘change the rules of the game,’ as it were, to answer to the most pressing political needs of the government at the moment.”

He warned that while disagreements between the attorney-general and the government are valid criticisms, they cannot be used as fodder for the Sunday decision, which reversed 20 years of legal precedent and politicized a process that is apolitical at its core.

The Mivtzar HaDemocratia ("Fortress of democracy") group appealed to the court on Sunday evening, requesting that it cancel the government's decision.

Attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner argued that the decision is anything but impartial or professional, and contains severe legal discrepancies. She also requested that the court freeze the next step in Levin's proposal: holding the ministerial committee meeting to discuss the A-G's dismissal. 

The Mivtzar HaDemocratia (“Fortress of democracy”) group appealed to the court on Sunday evening, requesting that it cancel the government’s decision.

Attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner argued that the decision is anything but impartial or professional and contains severe legal discrepancies. She also requested that the court freeze the next step in Levin’s proposal: holding the ministerial committee meeting to discuss the A-G’s dismissal.