Communications minister tells High Court he won’t reverse firing of post office chief

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi told the High Court of Justice that he will not reverse his decision to fire Israel Postal Company Chairman Mishael Vaknin, despite the court’s recommendation earlier this month that he do so.

Writing to the court, Karhi tied the issue to the recent landmark High Court ruling striking down the government’s “reasonableness law,” asserting that if the judges reversed his decision to fire Vaknin they would be illegitimately interfering in his authority as communications minister.

In September, the High Court froze a decision taken in July by Karhi and fellow cabinet minister David Amsalem to fire Vaknin, with the court calling into question the postal chief’s rapid dismissal soon after the ministers entered office.

Earlier this month, Justices Isaac Amit, Khaled Kabub and David Mintz recommended that Karhi and Amsalem reverse their decision, warning that if they did not the judges would likely instruct them to do so and gave the communications minister until Wednesday to respond.

“This is a decision which goes to the root of the authority of the elected [official], and that being the case it is outside of the authority of the court,” Karhi wrote in his letter to the High Court.

“I stand by my decision which was taken in accordance with the law, and in coordination with the minister with responsibility for government companies [Amsalem], to remove the petitioner from office,” Karhi added.

“This is my position and also the position of professional officials in the Communications Ministry in general and the Israel Post administration in particular,” the minister insisted.

He told the court sardonically that if it reversed his decision, his ministry’s other responsibilities vis-a-vis the postal company would also effectively be transferred to the court, saying that he was ready to “do a handover briefing to the court’s staff” and help facilitate this transfer of power.

“However, if the court is not ready to take on the responsibility associated with governance — it must not touch this authority. The legislator determined that the authority rests with the respondent [the minister], and this is the law.”

During the previous hearing on January 4, the justices pointed out that a director of a government company had never before been fired by a government minister, and expressed significant concern that the dismissal of Vaknin was not based on professional considerations.

“The law for government companies has existed for 50 years, ministers have appointed directors, and never has one been fired. When you look at the sequence of events, the suspicion arises that the ministers removed a chairman who was appointed by the previous minister, without a strong basis [for doing so],” Kabub said, according to a Ynet report.

Vaknin’s removal in July as chair of the Israel Postal Company drew intense criticism from then-Government Companies Authority director Michal Rosenbaum, and was also opposed by some in the Justice Ministry.

Rosenbaum and the Postal Company — which is in the process of a privatization effort — have contended that Vaknin’s dismissal was politically motivated, to allow Karhi and Amsalem to appoint loyalists to the service’s board of directors.

Rosenbaum herself resigned earlier this month, accusing Amsalem of using his authority to appoint cronies to senior positions in government companies.

Rosenbaum wrote in her resignation letter that Amsalem believes “the government companies are not a public resource but a ‘pool of jobs’ that he should use to accumulate power and political status.”

As a result, she continued, “Amsalem put enormous pressure on me and the Authority to support the appointment of political activists and [his] associates to key positions in government companies.”

In light of Karhi’s refusal to voluntarily reverse Vaknin’s dismissal, the High Court will now have to make a final decision as to whether the decision to fire him was based on considerations commensurate with administrative law.