The High Court of Justice on Tuesday issued a conditional order in petitions seeking the dismissal of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, instructing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to explain why he has not removed Ben-Gvir from office. In an unusual move underscoring the gravity of the case, the court expanded the panel of justices hearing the petitions to nine.
According to the court’s decision, affidavits responding to the petitions on behalf of Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir must be submitted by March 10. The hearing itself is scheduled for March 24.
Expanded Panel Amid Calls to Defy the Court
The justices noted that the expansion of the panel was prompted by the “nature and gravity” of the issues at stake, particularly in light of public calls by coalition leaders urging Netanyahu to disregard a potential court ruling ordering Ben-Gvir’s dismissal.
Three weeks ago, senior coalition figures sent a letter to Netanyahu sharply criticizing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, accusing her of attempting a “coup” after she argued that the prime minister must explain why Ben-Gvir remains in office. “The attempt by the ousted legal advisor to fire a senior government minister is an attempted coup against democracy,” the letter stated. “We will stand like a wall against the baseless dismissal of a government minister.”
Background: Delayed Hearings
The High Court had originally scheduled a hearing on the petitions for January 15, but postponed it, citing the prime minister’s failure to address the substance of the claims. The hearing was rescheduled for March, and the panel was first expanded to five justices before being further enlarged to nine this week.
On January 1, Baharav-Miara formally asked the court to require Netanyahu to justify his refusal to dismiss Ben-Gvir. In her submission, she accused the minister of “abusing his position to improperly influence the activities of the Israel Police in the most sensitive areas of law enforcement and investigations, in violation of basic democratic principles.”
Ben-Gvir responded briefly at the time, dismissing the attorney general with a personal attack.
Attorney General: Police Independence at Risk
In her legal opinion, Baharav-Miara outlined what she described as a consistent pattern of misconduct by Ben-Gvir, including systematic interference in police operations, issuing unlawful operational directives, and repeatedly exceeding his authority. She warned that his actions undermine the independence of the police and risk turning the force into a political instrument.
She further argued that existing safeguards were no longer sufficient to protect the public from this conduct.
Failed Compromise Agreement
In April last year, Ben-Gvir and Baharav-Miara reached a compromise intended to limit the minister’s involvement in police affairs, enabling the attorney general to defend him against dismissal petitions. Under the agreement, Ben-Gvir was barred from involvement in protests, from interviewing police officers, and from interfering in operational decisions.
However, Baharav-Miara now contends that Ben-Gvir repeatedly violated the terms of that agreement. In her submission to the court, she described the compromise as having ultimately proven hollow, stating that when disputes arose over operational matters, it became clear that the document amounted to a declaration “without enforcement.”
The court’s forthcoming ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the government, the attorney general, and the judiciary.
Comments