AG to the Supreme Court: Urgent to Appoint Supreme Court President

Gali Baharav-Miara, the Attorney General, petitioned the Supreme Court with an urgent request to set a date for appointing a permanent president of the Supreme Court, warning of damage to the judiciary’s independence and public trust.

Credit: Chaim Goldberg/Flash90

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara submitted her response to the Supreme Court yesterday (Tuesday) regarding a petition addressing the appointment of a permanent Supreme Court president. Baharav-Miara emphasized the ongoing harm to the judiciary’s independence due to the delay in the appointment and warned about its impact on the system’s functionality and public trust.

A Date Must Be Set for Elections Soon

“The prolonged situation of not having a permanent president undermines the public standing of the judiciary, both in Israel and internationally,” the Attorney General stated. She added that a date for the elections must be set soon. Furthermore, she urged the prevention of dependency of the judiciary on the executive branch and emphasized the need for the Judicial Selection Committee to convene as soon as possible to appoint a permanent Supreme Court president. According to Baharav-Miara, “Failing to appoint a president damages public trust and the proper administration of the judiciary. Therefore, a clear date must be set for convening the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint a president for the Supreme Court.”

Ministers’ Letter to Address Lack of Confidence in the Attorney General
It should be noted that last week, 13 Knesset members submitted a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Attorney Yossi Fuchs, calling for an urgent discussion in the government plenum to dismiss Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. The letter alleged that since the government’s establishment and particularly since the beginning of the war, the Attorney General has systematically acted contrary to the government’s and its ministers’ policies, creating obstacles to government decisions and legislative initiatives. It further claimed that her conduct includes unfounded legal objections, opposition to initiatives, and exceeding the boundaries of her mandate.

Share this article:

0 0 votes
rating of the article
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Loading more articles
Skip to content