Attorney-General Baharav-Miara refuses to attend her own dismissal hearing

The government formed the committee, called the “Ministerial Committee on the Methods and Conditions for Terminating the Tenure of the Attorney General," on June 8, after it failed to appoint the previous version of the committee. Justice Minister Yariv Levin argued that the previous version of the committee, which included independent non-government members, was formed by a government decision, and therefore, the government had the prerogative to cancel it.

Baharav-Miara countered in her letter that the hearing part of a “political deal” aimed at ensuring the government's survival, and warned of the consequences of the decision: The politicization of future attorneys-general.

“The hearing scheduled for today allows the government to dismiss the attorney general and any future advisor for foreign and corrupt considerations. In response to the fact that the advisor prevented illegal actions, ordered an investigation or prosecution of a coalition member, refused to halt a criminal proceeding against a sitting government member, or as part of a 'political deal' to ensure the survival of the government,” she wrote.

“This is a hearing for appearances only, the outcome of which is already known in advance, and its significance is a severe blow to the rule of law and Israeli democracy,” she added.

The letter by Baharav-Miara came after a government position penned by Chikli on the matter on Sunday. Later that day, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg rejected an injunction request to cancel the hearing. Sohlberg wrote that the court would only rule on the matter once it was “irreversible,” meaning after the committee’s decision.

In its decision to summon Baharav-Miara to a second hearing, the committee wrote, “The position of the Ministerial Committee is that the Attorney General’s decision to take the law into her own hands and not appear before the committee—especially after requesting an interim order from the Supreme Court to block the hearing, which the court rejected—constitutes contempt of court and undermines the standing of an elected government in Israel. This is particularly troubling given her role as the authorized interpreter of the law, after the Supreme Court ruled contrary to her position.”

However, the committee said it acted “beyond the letter of the law” in giving Baharav-Miara another chance.

“If the Attorney General is absent from this hearing as well, the Ministerial Committee will view it as a final waiver by the Attorney General of her right to a hearing before the matter of her dismissal is placed on the government’s agenda,” the ministers wrote.

In her letter to the committee, Baharav-Miara wrote that the hearing was based on an illegal government decision that is laden with foreign influences, and that she cannot, in good faith and in commitment to her role, attend.

“It erases, as though they never existed, the consequences and lessons learned from the Bar-On-Hebron Affair,” which established the public professional committee that advises the government when it elects or dismisses an attorney general, and “provides the government with complete political control over the appointment, with no external review.”

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 was revealed that his appointment was part of a deal between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shas head Arye Deri, who was then the 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 for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the southern West Bank city.

Deri was later indicted after a police investigation concluded that charges should be brought, and as a result, he was barred from politics for a decade.

Levin failed to fill all the positions of the committee. His decision does away with it and leaves the hiring and firing decision in a ministerial committee - the one Baharav-Miara refused to come to on Monday.

This decision has faced fierce criticism for politicizing a delicate and sensitive position. Proponents argue that the situation is so dire as to make the work relationship between the government and the attorney-general obsolete, and that since the public-professional committee could not be filled, this is the next necessary step.

The Attorney-General wrote that the decision was made swiftly and without the necessary groundwork that gives it the legal basis it needs, and most importantly, does not address its own dangerous consequences.

Baharav-Miara warned in her Monday letter that the consequences of the committee are a freeing of the legal constraints around the government, giving it free rein in a way that severely harms the rule of law, equality before the law, human rights, and cripples authorities against corrupt governmental control.

“The public-professional committee is the safety net that prevents improper use of the government's authority to dismiss,” she wrote.

“Without it,” she continued, “the government will have the authority to dismiss any future attorney-general for political goals.”