Justice Minister Yariv Levin published on Wednesday night a proposal to change the method of firing the Attorney General, which the government will approve during its weekly meeting on Sunday.
The government voted in late March that it had no confidence in Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, due to what it claimed were intentional attempts to trip up the government and lead to its downfall. Baharav-Miara has argued that if the government ceased attempting to pass illegal measures, she would not need to intervene.
A government decision in 2000 stipulated that the government appoint the AG based on recommendations by an independent appointment committee.
The committee is chaired by a retired High Court judge appointed by the Chief Justice, and its other members are a former Justice Minister or Attorney General appointed by the government, a Member of Knesset chosen by the Knesset Constitution Committee, a lawyer chosen by the Israel Bar Association (IBA), and an academic appointed by university law school heads.
The 2000 decision also requires that the government consult the same committee if it wishes to fire the AG.
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 AGs were willing to join it either.
Levin acknowledged this as one reason to change the firing method, but argued that the main justification was that the AG’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.”
Instead, Levin’s proposal says that the government will form a ministerial committee that will conduct an arraignment for the AG, 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.
The gov't 'unanimously lacks confidence' in Baharav-Miara
Levin said in a statement, “Since the government unanimously expressed a lack of confidence in the Attorney General, disputes between the government and the Attorney General have only worsened, effectively paralyzing government operations on various issues. This is happening at the height of a difficult war, when security needs demand structured work and close, efficient cooperation between the government and the Attorney General.”
Levin continued, “Under these circumstances, the consultation process with the selection committee has become redundant, and it is essential to allow the government to discuss and decide on the Attorney General's dismissal without delay. If an absolute majority of ministers support the dismissal, this would enable the government to work with a legal advisor in whom it has confidence and with whom it can cooperate effectively.”
A spokesperson for Levin did not respond to a request for examples as to the “worsening” of the relations between the government and the AG 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, that requires that it draft eligible haredim into the IDF. However, the spokesperson said that the timing of Levin’s new proposal was unrelated.
Baharav-Miara has insisted that the government respect the High Court ruling, and has repeatedly stressed to Defense Minister Yisrael Katz that the government was not using all of the tools at its disposal to sanction haredim who have ignored draft orders. In a previous oversight meeting on May 7, Baharav-Miara said that law required that the IDF sent out draft orders to all eligible haredi men who have yet to receive them. The AG oversight meetings are unrelated to the government’s attempts to pass a bill that will exempt a majority of haredim from service, since as long as such a bill does not pass, there is no legal basis to exempt haredim from service.
Levin did not request a legal opinion on its new measure to change the firing method of the AG, due to what he said was an “inherent conflict of interest” due to the fact that the justice ministry’s legal advisor answered to the AG on professional matters.
