‘One big criminal offense’: Levin, AG clash over complaint against High Court president

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara told Justice Minister Yariv Levin on Thursday that his effort to file a disciplinary complaint against Supreme Court President Isaac Amit did not meet the criteria for a justice minister to take such action and was “legally invalid.”

Levin is preparing to file a disciplinary complaint to the Disciplinary Court for Judges after State Ombudsman for Judges Asher Kula found that Amit had had a conflict of interest in a case in which he made several decisions before handing it off to a panel of three judges, which could have potentially benefited his brother.

Kula did not recommend disciplinary proceedings, however, and he dismissed nine other complaints against Amit, including one in which it was alleged he had violated construction laws in his home, allegations which Kula said had done “a significant injustice” to Amit and his family.

“The clear decision of the ombudsman… shows that there is no basis for advancing a disciplinary process, and does not provide [any] basis for continued clarifications on the disciplinary level. The opposite is true.”

She also stated that the authority of the justice minister to file a disciplinary complaint against a judge is extremely limited and must be a case where there is the possibility of “real harm to judicial independence” and “infiltration of political considerations.” Furthermore, she said Levin acted improperly by not consulting with her before filing the complaint.

Since there is no factual basis for such concerns in Levin’s complaint against Amit, Baharav-Miara told the justice minister that it is legally invalid.

Levin lambasted Baharav-Miara, saying he “categorically rejects” the letter and calling it “one big criminal offense.”

“The letter is a grave and extreme example of conflict of interest,” he charged, claiming that Baharav-Miara only objects to the complaint — and did not look into Amit’s alleged construction offenses — as a personal favor to the Supreme Court chief, after the latter previously backed a High Court of Justice ruling that nullified the government’s firing of her.

The court made that ruling after the government failed to oust Baharav-Miara using the legally established procedure, instead legislating a new method to fire her.

Levin also claimed that Baharav-Miara is beholden to Amit since the latter refused to tap an official to oversee the investigation into the leak by the military advocate general of a video of IDF soldiers allegedly abusing a Palestinian detainee, to “prevent the search for truth” regarding her own alleged part in the saga.

He vowed to continue pursuing his disciplinary complaint against Amit.

Levin has been engaged in a feud with Amit for several years and has refused to meet with him for over 18 months. He has repeatedly refused to recognize Amit’s authority as the court president since his appointment to the position.

Levin’s relationship with Baharav-Miara has also been highly contentious throughout his tenure as justice minister. The coalition, in efforts led largely by Levin, has tried unsuccessfully for months to fire her, accusing the attorney general of working against the government and undermining its interests.

Baharav-Miara has opposed several of the government’s signature legislative initiatives, including its controversial proposed judicial overhaul, and has refused to defend the government in proceedings in the High Court of Justice against some of its policies and legislation.

In August, the government voted to dismiss Baharav-Miara, though the High Court unanimously ruled last month to annul the move, asserting that the government had failed to provide legal justification for its decision to change the way an attorney general is fired, and determining that the new system it designed was fundamentally flawed.

The coalition has also pushed legislation that would carve up the attorney general’s role into three separate positions and effectively deprive the attorney general of authority and independence. That legislation is being worked on by the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, in preparation for the first of the three readings necessary for it to be passed into law. Even if passed, it is certain to face challenges at the High Court.

Last week, the Knesset approved a bill in its preliminary reading that would significantly erode the attorney general’s authority over legal advisers to government ministries.

Critics charge that the government’s judicial overhaul efforts are aimed at undermining democracy and eroding the system of checks and balances.