Dismissal of A-G illegal, unfounded, and sets dangerous precedent, deputy says
Limon submitted an advisory opinion just a few hours before the government decided to proceed with the A-G's dismissal.
Advancing procedures to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara the way the government has been is illegal and contradicts High Court of Justice legal precedents, Deputy Attorney-General Gil Limon wrote in an advisory opinion on Sunday morning.
The letter came just a few hours before the government decided to proceed with her dismissal. This decision would annul the two-decades-long procedure in place for hiring and firing the attorney-general. Limon wrote that this is, in effect, “the removal of a central institutional safeguard that ensures the A-G's independence, which is critical to protect the rule of law.”
He warned that this would taint and politicize every aspect of the government's legal advice.
Before the year 2000, the appointment of the attorney-general was in the government's hands. However, the standard of professionalism and legal proficiency was so high that the justice minister, who would propose the candidate, could not present one who had not qualified themselves to be appointed as a Supreme Court justice, explained the Israel Democracy Institute. As such, the government had the power to fire the attorney-general as well.
Shamgar Commission tasked with examining appointment procedure
In 1997, then-Justice Minister Tzachi Hanegbi directed the creation of the Shamgar Commission, which was tasked with examining the appointment procedure. Changes recommended by the commission led to the change of the appointment method and procedure in 2000. This procedure, intended to safeguard and ensure the attorney-general's independence, is what is in place today.
The committee is made up of a retired Supreme Court justice - this is the committee's chair, they are appointed by the Supreme Court president with the confirmation of the justice minister.
The other committee members are either a former justice minister or a former attorney-general, an MK, an attorney representing the Israel Bar Association, and an academic.
This committee is also what can dismiss the attorney-general. Each A-G appointment is for six years, but if the government can find and prove that one of the conditions set is failed or not met by the person, it is authorized to veer towards dismissal, provided that the decision is made in tandem with the committee.
Another criterion for favoring dismissal is if the differences of opinion are so large that they prevent effective cooperation between the judiciary and the government.
The referral then goes from the justice minister to the committee, which discusses the matter, and at this point can hear arguments by the attorney-general in their defense. The committee then presents its position to the government.
This system is what ensures the independence of the attorney-general, Limon explained, as this person holds powerful safeguards for democracy and legitimacy for lawmakers.
Limon noted that the premise that the attorney-general's position must remain independent and not subject to political influences was something that the Shamgar Commission understood, and so dedicated a significant part of its report to the hiring procedure, taking care to recommend external guarantors to the process.
Limon's letter highlighted in particular the consistent legal precedent that has honored the appointment and dismissal of the attorney-general. One of the effects of this is to show how it was respected across different prime ministers and different political leans over the years. This makes Levin's move so much more abrasive.
Since the 2022 elections, two of the committee's positions have been vacant: that of the former justice minister or attorney-general, which is appointed by the government, and that of the MK, selected by the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee. Both of these fall under the purview of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
Levin's new proposal “is made up of government ministers” and therefore effectively “cancels the existing requirement for the input of an untouched, objective and professional authority,” Limon wrote.
He added that the proposal itself lacks the professional and legal foundations it needs to annul the Shamgar Commission precedent, and that it appears to be the culmination of months-long failures to fire the attorney-general by Levin.
The original proposal cancels the requirement to consult the committee, fraying at the bond and dependence that the two authorities have in relation to each other. The proposal reads, “This change became necessary due to the severe distrust the government has towards the attorney-general, as expressed in a government decision from March 23.” Therefore, it continued, the dismissal must take place soon.
Very similar arguments were made by the government when it pushed to fire Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) chief Ronen Bar: A lack of trust that impedes productive work.
Bar argued that the distrust began when the agency started to probe Qatari ties to figures close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024 - not, as the government claimed, on October 7, 2023 with the surprise Hamas massacre attack. The High Court explained in its decision on the matter that a government must acknowledge the weight of previous decisions when it chooses to make ones that are in opposition to them, and that it must truly question the necessity of such a decision, or at least if it should be done in this manner.
The court added that proper procedure with Bar was not followed, and that this showcases, better than anything else, the move’s grave illegitimacy.
Limon wrote on Sunday, “the proposal reasonings point unequivocally to personal interests, and indicate that it is here to ‘change the rules of the game,’ as it were, to answer to the most pressing political needs of the government at the moment.”
He warned that disagreements between the attorney-general and the government are valid criticisms, but they cannot be used as fodder for the Sunday decision, which reversed 20 years of legal precedent, and politicized a process that is a-political at its core.
