‘Absurdity’ of A-G’s opposition must be terminated, Israeli gov’t tells High Court

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said that the government’s response “clearly reveals the serious flaws” in its dismissal attempts.

After receiving an extension for its response to the High Court of Justice on the attempts to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, the government on Sunday doubled down on its position in its response, explaining that it is unreasonable to force the government to work with a legal adviser “that is actively working against its policies.”

The position, authored by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli, pointed to what it described as “absurd,” that the government can’t be legally represented by its own lawyer –the attorney-general – in the rising list of cases where they clash.

“We expect the court to acknowledge this absurdity. The Attorney-General worked systematically to cut the cord between her office and the government, we now expect the court to finish it off,” reads the position. Part of the issue, which has been long-present in legal debate, is that the attorney-general wears two hats: it heads the prosecution, meaning it represents the government’s position in significant cases, and it also is the chief legal adviser to the government and considered the weightiest interpreter of the law.

When her interpretation of the law differs from the government, her office can’t represent it, leading to the sticky situation the two authorities are in today.

A ministerial committee is scheduled to convene tomorrow to discuss her dismissal, the hastened solution Levin has been pushing, after he failed to fill the positions needed for the public-professional committee that would oversee the process, hand in hand with the government. Petitions to freeze the hearing have been submitted, which the government insisted in its decision should be wholly rejected.

Levin’s decision to leave the process instead in the hands of ministers has faced fierce criticism for politicizing a delicate and sensitive topic. Proponents argue that the situation is so dire as to make the work relationship between the government and the attorney-general obsolete.

In the last line of the decision, the ministers note that an injunction against the ministerial hearing would be “wildly exceptional” and “fundamentally opposed to the legal principle by which legal overview should take place after an act has been committed, not before.” The government called for the injunction requests to be rejected.

The decision did not address the attorney-general’s position, concretized in several advisery opinions over the past few weeks, that the legislation to dismiss her has far-reaching consequences for the legal advisery as a whole and for whoever her successor may be – it would politicize a powerful key position, viewed by some as one of the only checks on power on the government.

‘Serious flaws’

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG) said that the government’s response “clearly reveals the serious flaws” in its dismissal attempts.

“Instead of presenting a real legal justification for changing the mechanism, the government is trying to explain why it needs to dismiss the attorney general right now and why it needs to do so by changing the rules of the game. The response indicates that the government is aware of the weakness of the move from a legal perspective and is trying to justify a decision that was made in a clear conflict of interest,” it explained.