High Court freezes AG’s dismissal until further notice, rebukes minister who called to defy court orders on matter

The High Court of Justice turns the temporary order it issued freezing the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav Miara into an interim order, ruling that the government’s decision to fire her will be suspended until further notice from the court, and repeating that Baharav-Miara’s authorities as attorney general remain unchanged.

Judge Noam Sohlberg also issues strong criticism of Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who, in a letter, told all employees in his ministry to ignore any instructions from the Attorney General’s Office following the vote on Baharav-Miara’s dismissal last week.

“What was said in the letter is regrettable. Everyone is obligated to respect decisions and rulings of the court,” writes Sohlberg, and, quoting from a 2023 ruling, says that such respect is to be expected all the more so from state officials.

“Needless to say, the conduct of the communications minister in this case is severe; it contradicts fundamental concepts of the rule of law,” continues the judge, saying Karhi’s letter was even more egregious since he instructed his employees to defy the court.

As well as citing High Court rulings, Sohlberg also references a quotation from the works of the 14th-century Talmudic scholar Rabbeinu Nissim about the crucial importance of adhering to the rule of law.

Sohlberg nevertheless rejects requests for a contempt of court ruling against Karhi, saying the court has yet to decide if the state’s agencies are subject to contempt of court rulings and, regardless, such a measure would be a last resort.

The judge says he hopes that Karhi’s letter will be “clarified,” and therefore “prevent a continuation of said conduct.”

He reiterates that the attorney general’s legal position papers remain binding on the government, and that Karhi had no legal basis to tell ministry employees to ignore them.

However, Karhi doubles down on his rejection of the court order, saying the High Court was acting “in direct opposition to the law.”

Says Karhi: “The law explicitly states that the government has the sole authority to appoint and dismiss the attorney general, and that is how the government acted. The judge’s order that the government’s decision is not valid until judicial review deviates from the law and contradicts the express language of the law.”

Despite Karhi’s comments, the High Court has exercised the power of judicial review over administrative decisions by the government since the 1950s.