A-G: Turning my firing process political is illegal, opens door to political deals

Yahoo

9 hours ago

The government's decision to change the hiring and firing process is 'fundamental, tectonic,' and will affect the entire future of the position.
The government's push to hasten the firing Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara means the upending of the process that has been in place for her position for decades is against the law and will serve as a slippery slope for political deals, the A-G said on Monday, as her office issued an advisory opinion against the government's decision.
The decision in question was passed on June 8 and stipulated changes to the traditional firing process of the attorney-general. A ministerial committee on the matter is scheduled for Monday, led by Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud).
To hire or fire the A-G, an external public-professional committee must convene and provide an expert opinion before any government decision comes to light.
The committee includes a retired Supreme Court justice as chair, appointed by the Supreme Court chief justice and by approval of the justice minister; a former justice minister or attorney-general, chosen by the government; an MK, chosen by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee; a lawyer, chosen by the Israel Bar Association (IBA); and a legal academic, selected by the deans of Israel's law faculties.
The term of an attorney-general is six years. If the government wishes to end the term early, it has to meet specific conditions – such as if there are consistent and severe disagreements between theA-G and the government, rendering their working relationship obsolete.
If this is the case, the justice minister must submit a request to the committee. It then holds a meeting, during which the A-G can present their side. The committee then submits its recommendations.
It's not just politics the A-G's Office is worried about; it is what led to the creation of the public professional committee in the first place: The Bar-On-Hebron Affair.
In January 1997, lawyer Roni Bar-On was appointed attorney-general. He was not qualified for the position and resigned two days later after public and political outrage.
About a week later, it came out that his appointment was part of a deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shas head Arye Deri, who was then internal security minister, to advance a plea bargain in Deri's corruption case. Deri pushed for the appointment in exchange for his party's support of the controversial Hebron Agreement.
Deri was later indicted after a police investigation concluded that charges be brought, and, due to that, he was out of politics for a decade.
The committee was created to avoid such a scenario.
What the government outlined in its June 8 decision is 'laden with political-governmental factors,' read the Monday advisory opinion by the Attorney-General's Office.
Under its framework, all that is required is for the justice minister to present the request to fire the A-G to a committee made up of government ministers only, and then to bring it to a parliamentary vote. This effectively 'circumvents the necessity to appear before the public-professional committee,' explained the opinion.
The existing procedure came into effect after an attempted political appointment of the attorney-general and has been in effect since 2000, thanks to the Shamgar Commission.
'The requirement to seek counsel with the public professional committee was instituted specifically so that political factors don't influence the decision,' said the A-G's Office, which is also why specific conditions must be met for the firing process to even begin, to make sure it's not a political hit and to prevent complete governmental control over the process.
The advisory opinion adds that the government decision didn't come in a vacuum; it came after Justice Minister Yariv Levin had already set out to have her fired under the current framework.
However, he couldn't successfully call the committee in. He then pivoted, reads the decision, to change the whole process altogether, 'without professional, serious investment, without proper legal support, and without explaining why the fundamentals of the process actually need to be changed.'
As soon as the decision was announced, several NGOs immediately petitioned the High Court of Justice to issue an injunction on the decision and force the government to explain its actions. The petitioners argued that the decision has no legal basis and breaks with the traditions of previous governments, that it is clouded with foreign influences, and that what Levin did here was trying to change the rules of the game while already in it, when he realized he wouldn't succeed in calling up the committee.
'The government showed, with its actions, that if the existing frameworks don't find its favor or serve its immediate needs, it will simply change them,' reads the opinion, as it called on the court to order the injunctions against the decision.
After the petitions were filed, Justice Noam Sohlberg gave several extensions on the deadline for the government's response. The deadline is now July 15.
However, on July 2, the government announced that the ministerial committee will convene on Monday, July 14 – before the deadline runs out. It also summoned Baharav-Miara for a hearing on the matter, which was later canceled and replaced by the committee meeting announcement.
Levin said on Monday, 'The attorney-general is wasting state resources to avoid her firing, with a clear conflict of interest. The government decision I led is not only legal but necessary.'
The office pointed out that it informed the government in a timely manner that it would allow separate legal representation on the matter before the court.
It added, 'The decision has fundamental, far-reaching consequences, ones that touch the roots of the A-G's position to protect the rule of law.'
It further warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, calling it 'fundamental and tectonic' in nature.
'This decision fundamentally changes the character, independence, statesmanship, and ability of any future attorney-general to carry out their duties and protect the rule of law,' as it will trickle down to legal advisers present in the ministries.
Eliav Breuer and Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.