Attorney-general freezes police commissioner decision to remove legal adviser

Israel Police Commissioner Insp.-Gen. Daniel Levi’s decision to remove police legal adviser Dep.-Ch. Elazar Kahana from his position was done in a speedy, unexplained, and potentially illegal procedure and was therefore frozen, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara wrote in a letter to Levi on Tuesday.

Levi’s decision was to recommend to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to move Kahana to a different position of the same rank and head the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigation Department.

According to Baharav-Miara, Levi announced the decision within the police on Tuesday evening despite agreeing just hours earlier to hold off on the move until holding an organized meeting with her on the matter.

The decision to remove Kahana from his position was made against his wishes, according to Baharav-Miara, and without conferring first with the attorney-general, who is the professional authority for all legal advisers in public systems, including the police.

This amounted to a de facto unexplained firing of Kahana, a “senior, respected, and experienced officer serving in an important and especially sensitive position,” the attorney-general wrote.

“The police legal adviser is the inner organizational gatekeeper and responsible for treating the legal aspects of the police’s work, including systemic, significant, and sensitive aspects, such as the ongoing protests across the country, and the subject of ethicality and appointments in the police,” Baharav-Miara wrote.

“For this reason, in order to ensure the professional independence of the legal advisers and their ability to fulfill their roles as gatekeepers, the appointment or removal of legal advisers in organizations including the police, are done while conferring with the attorney-general, to whom they are subject professionally. Such a move of de facto firing a legal adviser, in an expedited process as described, and without the involvement of the attorney-general, is unprecedented,” Baharav-Miara wrote.

She concluded that the “factual state” of Kahana’s status should not be changed until the legality of the matter is determined, and therefore Levi should not take the next step, which is to apply for the national security minister to approve the move.

Itamar Ben-Gvir

Levi was appointed to the position earlier this year by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has repeatedly clashed with Baharav-Miara over moves that she deemed illegal, including the promotion of a police officer under investigation for the illegal use of stun grenades against protesters.

Kahana sided with the attorney-general in that episode and wrote that the officer, Meir Suissa, could not be promoted. Kahana also opined that police officers did not have the authority to confiscate signs at protests, no matter how provocative their content.

Levi responded in a letter to Baharav-Miara on Wednesday that the move had been made as part of a broader round of moves and that it did not require her approval. Levi wrote that he was “surprised” that the attorney-general had called the move a “removal” of Kahana, since he was receiving a different role.

Levi added that “with all due respect,” there was no legal requirement to involve the attorney-general in the decision-making process, and that if there was such a requirement, it meant that the authority to make such appointments had been taken away from him and given to an official (the attorney-general) who was not familiar with the police’s needs.

Levi admitted that the move was done against Kahana’s wishes but said that “broader systemic needs” sometimes override personal preferences of senior officers.

Levi concluded that he was “convinced” the move would “contribute much” to the police and that he was looking forward to the continued “full cooperation” between the relevant officials

Although he did not write it directly, the letter indicated that Levi would not heed Baharav-Miara’s directive that he refrain from recommending Kahana to the position.

The attorney-general is the statutory official responsible for interpreting the law for the government. Numerous rulings by the High Court of Justice, including in recent months, have said that her interpretations were legally binding.