The High Court of Justice on Monday ordered the government to show cause why it should not be barred from dismissing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, after ministers declined to defend their decision in court.
A panel of nine justices, including Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit, Justice David Mintz and Justice Yael Willner, signed the order. They asked the government to clarify by Sept. 14 whether it would accept the court’s recommendation to cancel its earlier decisions to oust Baharav-Miara and instead follow a formal dismissal process through a public search committee.
4 View gallery
Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara
(Photo: Amit Shabi, Nachum Segal, Alex Kolomoisky, Avi Moalem, Sarya Diamant)
The decision cancels a hearing that had been scheduled for Wednesday. It came after the state failed to file a preliminary response to the petitions or request an extension. “Conditional orders are hereby granted as requested,” the justices wrote, noting that under Israeli law the dismissal of senior public officials requires consultation with a public committee — the same body involved in their appointment.
The court pointed to guidelines adopted in 2000 based on the recommendations of the Shamgar Committee, which was formed in the 1990s after a corruption scandal. That decision required governments to consult a public committee both in appointing and dismissing an attorney general. “No justification has been presented to deviate from this rule,” the justices said.
Before the court issued its order, the government had resolved not to submit a legal defense, instead hiring a private lawyer and refusing to send representatives to the hearing.
Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli wrote to the court that it lacked authority to intervene in government decisions and that the attorney general had no power to prevent the government from being represented by outside counsel.
The ministers also rejected Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg’s earlier suggestion that the dismissal proceed through the established committee. They argued that such a committee cannot be convened because former justice ministers and attorneys general who would normally serve on it have already spoken publicly against the government.
As a result, the case will now move forward with only the petitioners and the attorney general’s representatives present, while the government remains absent from the proceedings. The court also rejected requests from pro-government petitioners to join as “friends of the court.”
Some justices, including Sohlberg, have previously noted the difficulty of reviewing government decisions when the government itself refuses to appear.
Legal experts noted that the government’s refusal to participate in the proceedings was highly unusual. Justice Alex Stein had previously written that such a process could hardly be called a “trial” if one side chose not to appear, likening it to a soccer game in which one team was allowed to shoot at an empty net.
In past cases, similar concerns arose when the attorney general prevented the government from being represented. This time, however, Baharav-Miara explicitly allowed ministers to hire private counsel, yet they declined.
As in a previous case involving the dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, the justices could ultimately restrict their ruling to procedural flaws or use the case to set broader precedent about the attorney general’s authority and her relationship with the government. While all nine justices appear to agree that the dismissal process was legally flawed, deeper divisions remain between activist and conservative judges over the scope of the attorney general’s powers as the state’s chief legal guardian.
The government and its ministers lashed out at the court. Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said the interim injunction “has no legal validity” and insisted that only the government has authority to appoint or dismiss the attorney general. “No unlawful order will return her to her post,” he wrote.
Levin called the court’s decision “absurd,” dismissing procedural concerns as a pretext. “It is self-evident that only the government determines its own legal adviser,” Levin said. He accused the court of improperly diverting state prosecution resources for Baharav-Miara’s personal defense, leaving the government without proper representation.
For her part, Baharav-Miara told the court in her filing that the dismissal process was “fundamentally invalid.” She argued the government changed the rules after beginning the procedure “to ensure one outcome: the removal of the attorney general overseeing the prime minister’s criminal trial.”
On Aug. 4, the Cabinet voted unanimously to dismiss her, with neither Baharav-Miara nor Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attending the meeting. Twenty-two ministers backed the move. Levin argued at the time that the government could not be forced to work with an attorney general it had lost faith in.
Following that decision, the court issued an interim injunction freezing her dismissal and barring the appointment of a replacement. In Monday’s order, the justices stressed that the injunction remains in force, with Deputy Chief Justice Sohlberg reiterating that no substitute can be named while the case is pending.