The High Court of Justice stated that the government must respond within five days to the issuance of interim orders in the move against Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, a statement confirmed on Tuesday evening.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel argued in a petition to the Supreme Court that the government’s decision to alter the method for the hiring and dismissal of attorneys-general is targeted specifically to remove Gali Baharav-Miara from her post as soon as possible.

Judge Noam Sohlberg issued the order for the government to respond before 12:00 p.m. on June 15 to the MQG's petition.

MQG argued against Baharv-Miara's dismissal

MQG requested the annulment of the decision, as well as a freeze on the summoning of the attorney-general for a pre-dismissal hearing, scheduled for next week.

“The government decision is not a fundamental change in the mechanism, but a targeted move whose sole purpose is to bring about the dismissal of the current attorney-general as soon as possible,” said MQG.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara sits next to Justice Minister Yariv Levin at a ceremony for retiring acting chief justice Uzi Vogelman, at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, in October. (credit: OREN BEN HAKOON/FLASH90)
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara sits next to Justice Minister Yariv Levin at a ceremony for retiring acting chief justice Uzi Vogelman, at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, in October. (credit: OREN BEN HAKOON/FLASH90)
A government decision in 2000 stipulated that the government appoint or fire the attorney-general based on recommendations by an independent appointment committee.

MQG pointed to several flaws in the decision, which Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon noted as well in an advisory opinion penned last week. MQG explained that the decision was “made without a relevant factual foundation.”

The NGO further noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently on trial for three indictments. “Along with him, nine other government members are under investigation or criminal proceedings in various fields, which puts them in direct conflict of interest with the attorney-general who heads the state prosecution system and is responsible for decisions regarding the filing of indictments against them,” explained MQG.

Eliav Breuer contributed to this report.