The High Court of Justice on Monday abruptly canceled a highly anticipated hearing on the government’s bid to fire Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara after no representative of the government appeared in court. Chief Justice Isaac Amit announced from the bench that the justices would issue their ruling based solely on the written material, underscoring the deepening institutional confrontation over the independence of the A-G.
An expanded seven-justice panel had gathered in Jerusalem to hear six petitions against the August government decision to remove Baharav-Miara. At the outset, Amit twice asked whether anyone was present on behalf of the government. When no one stepped forward, he ended the hearing on the spot.
“On behalf of the government, no appearance has been registered. In the absence of an appearance by the government, we see no point in holding a hearing in front of an empty gate,” he said, prompting shouts from parts of the audience as the justices exited the hall.
Shortly after, Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli released a sharply worded joint statement defending the government’s absence. Echoing their long-running criticism of the attorney-general, they said that “in this absurd production the government did not participate,” arguing that Baharav-Miara – whom they referred to as “a dismissed official” – “subjugated the legal advisory system and the prosecution to represent her instead of the government and to block her removal.”
The ministers said that the government had repeatedly asked the court to stop what they described as a self-serving dynamic. “The government cannot participate in a proceeding whose outcome has been predetermined,” they added, saying the court was effectively making the government “the only body in Israel forced to accept a legal adviser it no longer trusts and representation in court it did not choose.”
They further accused Baharav-Miara of operating under a conflict of interest to hinder the proper handling of one of the country’s most sensitive investigations and accused the court of cooperating with “deliberate, ongoing foot-dragging.” They ended their statement by adding, “The time has come for the court to engage in soul-searching.”
Petitioners, meanwhile, welcomed the court’s decision to proceed without an oral hearing. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel (MQG), one of the leading petitioners, accused the government of fleeing judicial scrutiny. “A government that boycotts court hearings, that does not submit responses despite the set deadlines, and that refuses to appear for legal proceedings does not deserve the court’s mercy,” the movement said.
It called the no-show “the farce the government has created,” saying ministers sought to oust Baharav-Miara through a political process while refusing to confront the legal arguments marshaled against them.
The MQG further expressed confidence that the ruling would rely on the extensive written record already before the justices, noting that seven judges had already signaled the centrality of the Shamgar mechanism for appointing and dismissing attorneys-general and that “those who are in the right do not flee from court. The government fled, and that says it all.”
Governments attempt to bypass 'Shamgar model'
At the core of the petitions is the government’s choice to bypass the “Shamgar model,” which, since 2000, has anchored both the appointment and removal of attorneys-general in a process guided by an independent public-professional committee.
Instead, Levin advanced the dismissal through a ministers’ committee headed by Chikli, a move the attorney-general said lacked any legal basis. Baharav-Miara chose not to appear before the committee, arguing that he process was unlawful. The committee nonetheless recommended her dismissal, and the government approved it unanimously.
The High Court has already frozen any harm to the attorney-general’s status or powers while the petitions remain pending, effectively keeping her in office even as ministers avoid working with her and pursue alternative legal channels. The dispute over her removal sits alongside broader government efforts to reshape the legal system, including attempts to alter judicial selection, split the attorney-general’s role, and limit binding legal advice, efforts that have heightened tensions between the coalition and the judiciary over the past two years.
Monday’s aborted hearing was set before a panel that included Amit, Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justices David Mintz, Ofer Grosskopf, Alex Stein, Gila Canfy Steinitz, and Chaled Kabub. The same panel had earlier issued a conditional order requiring the government to explain why its dismissal track should not be overturned.