Israel's High Court Judge Solberg issues interim order against gov't's dismissal of attorney general

Deputy President of Israel's Supreme Court Justice Noam Solberg issued on Sunday evening an interim order freezing the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

This came alongside sharp criticism of Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who had called on ministry employees to treat the attorney general as though she had already left her post.

Justice Solberg ruled, “The government’s decision to dismiss the attorney general shall not enter into effect, with all that implies, until further notice.”

Regarding Karhi’s directive to his ministry staff, Solberg wrote, “The conduct of the Communications Minister in this matter is serious and contradicts fundamental principles of the rule of law.”

He added: “This is all the more significant given that the minister instructed his staff to act accordingly (as if the attorney general were not in office).”

For now, the judge rejected requests to hold the minister in contempt of court, stating it is too early to decide on that matter. In practice, Solberg’s interim order makes clear that the dismissal will not take effect, and that there will be no changes to the attorney general’s authority or the manner in which she works with the government.

Solberg concluded, “We are not dealing here with a former attorney general,” adding, “One can only hope that we will not need to provide such clarifications again.”

Karhi objected to Solberg’s decision and made clear that he has no intention of complying with it.

A statement from the minister’s office read, “Justice Solberg is gravely mistaken. The attorney general’s former conduct against the government, and the conduct of the Supreme Court in outright contradiction to the law, is what is truly serious here. Everyone must respect the law and the authority of the courts – including the High Court justices and the former attorney general.”

The statement continued, “The law explicitly states that the government has the sole authority to appoint and dismiss the attorney general, and that is exactly what the government has done. The judge’s instruction that the government’s decision is invalid until judicial review is an overreach and directly contradicts the plain text of the law.”

Karhi concluded: “We must not allow the absurd situation to continue in which the attorney general operates in direct opposition to her role, blocking every move and decision of the government she is meant to advise. The government unanimously decided her term has ended – that is our legal right and authority.”