In a unanimous decision issued Sunday, Israel’s High Court of Justice, sitting in an expanded panel of seven justices, overturned the decision of the Ministerial Political Committee—commonly referred to as the “Shikli Committee”—to dismiss Legal Advisor of the government Gali Baharav-Miara. The court ruled that the attempted dismissal was carried out without proper legal authority and in violation of established procedure, rendering it unlawful.
Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, who authored the ruling, stated that “any unilateral action that could change the status, powers, or working methods of the Attorney General in connection with the dismissal decision is inconsistent with this ruling.” As a result, Justice Minister Yariv Levin is required to restore Baharav-Miara’s full operational authority, including access to her Tel Aviv office.
Rare Unanimity Across Judicial Camps
All members of the panel signed the ruling: President Amit, Deputy President Noam Solberg, and Justices David Mintz, Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, and Khaled Kabob. The unanimity is notable given the ideological diversity of the panel.
The decision is grounded primarily in procedural and administrative law, principles broadly accepted across the judicial spectrum. Amit relied extensively on past rulings by Deputy President Solberg—widely regarded as a conservative voice—citing him more than ten times.
Quoting Solberg, Amit emphasized that the role of the attorney general is “to ensure that the government’s policy is advanced in accordance with the law,” underscoring that the position is not adversarial by nature but essential to lawful governance.
Court Criticizes Government’s Conduct
Beyond invalidating the dismissal itself, the court made clear that the government must return to the long-standing norm of working with the attorney general—not against her.
The justices pointed to the government’s failure to appear at the hearing and its inability to justify abandoning the established dismissal mechanism that has governed attorney-general appointments and removals for decades.
Despite the absence of government representation, the court examined the decision-making process and concluded that the government had constructed a political dismissal mechanism only after declaring its intention to remove the attorney general, and did so through an expedited and deeply flawed process.
Shamgar Committee Framework Reaffirmed
Central to the ruling was the framework established by the Shamgar Committee, chaired by former Supreme Court President Meir Shamgar, following the Brown–Hebron affair. That committee mandated consultation with a professional-public advisory committee for both appointment and dismissal of the attorney general, specifically to safeguard the office’s independence.
President Amit stressed that the Shamgar Committee had “warned against the danger inherent in concentrating these powers solely in the hands of the political echelon,” and deliberately designed a balanced mechanism to prevent politicization.
Administrative Law Violations
While acknowledging that the government may, in principle, change appointment or dismissal procedures, the court ruled that such changes must comply with administrative law standards—including reliance on a solid factual foundation, professional consultation, and reasoned deliberation.
Here again, Amit cited Solberg’s jurisprudence, noting that “the more complex and significant the decision, the greater the obligation for facts, discussion, and reasoning.”
The government’s actions, the court held, fell far short of these requirements. The decision was made within four days—only two of them working days—without staff work, without professional consultation, without seeking the attorney general’s own opinion, and without examining less politicized alternatives.
Dismissal Declared Void
Given these defects, the justices unanimously ruled that the establishment of a political committee in place of the professional-public body was unlawful, and that any dismissal decision derived from it was therefore null and void.
Court: Warning of Possible Contempt Proceedings
The ruling concluded with a forward-looking and unusually sharp warning. In light of what the court described as the government’s “disturbing conduct” toward the attorney general, the justices indicated that they may, if necessary, invoke the court’s powers under the Contempt of Court Ordinance to enforce compliance.
Such measures are rarely used against the state, and only when no other enforcement tools are available. They are designed not to punish, but to compel obedience to binding judicial rulings.
The message from the High Court was unmistakable. When an expanded and ideologically diverse panel speaks with one voice—and signals readiness to enforce its rulings against the government—it reflects deep institutional concern.
For those who believe that no government stands above the law, the ruling underscores a fundamental principle: the rule of law binds the state itself, no less than its citizens.
Comments