Contrary to regular practices, Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara have only met five times since the establishment of the Netanyahu government, Israel Hayom has learned.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

In contrast, previous justice ministers, such as Gideon Sa'ar, Avi Nissankorn, and Ayelet Shaked used to hold weekly meetings with the attorney general at the time.

According to data, the last time Levin and Baharav-Miara met was two months ago, on Feb. 28. The meeting before that was held on Feb. 2.

During that meeting, Baharav-Miara penned a legal opinion, harshly criticizing the judicial reform that Levin is spearheading, saying it would cause "great harm to Israel's system of checks and balances."

Israel Hayom learned that the exchange led to a significant breach of trust between the two officials, which is what led to a decrease in the frequency of their meetings.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Disagreements over judicial reform lead to falling out between Levin, AG appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed on Wednesday to appoint Blue and White leader Benny Gantz to the position of justice minister in the transitional government.

The appointment was due to be presented to the cabinet for approval later Wednesday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Netanyahu announced the decision a few hours before the High Court of Justice was scheduled to meet to discuss the injunction it placed on the appointment of MK Ofir Akunis to the position, which the cabinet approved late Tuesday, sparking petitions about the decisions legality to the High Court.

The highly-anticipated High Court hearing on Tuesday's cabinet vote to appoint Akunis justice minister was scheduled to be broadcast live at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Tensions are still running high after the court issued a temporary injunction freezing the appointment and ordered the government to respond by Wednesday afternoon about why Akunis should fill the position.

On Tuesday night, the High Court of Justice ruled that Netanyahu's appointment of Akunis to the post of justice minister was not legal, despite having been approved by a majority in the cabinet.

A panel of three justice, headed by Chief Justice Esther Hayut, accepted a petition filed by the Movement for Quality Government and another ethical government watchdog group, as well as the opinion of Attorney-General Avichai Mendelblit, and issued a temporary injunction freezing the appointment.

The judges asked the government to explain by Wednesday why the appointment should be approved.

Leader of the Religious Zionist Party MK Bezalel Smotrich wrote on social media: "We need to say it clearly: [Attorney General Avichai] Mendelblit does not have the authority to force the prime minister to recuse himself. There is no such law."

Smotrich wrote that "the dangerous threat is not the threat to Prime Minister Netanyahu, but rather the "threat to democracy and the people."

"If Mendelblit forces a change of government he will meet with forceful opposition from the people, who will fight for their sovereignty and independence," Smotrich wrote.

The controversy erupted after cabinet ministers voted Tuesday afternoon to approve the appointment of Akunis as justice minister. Mendelblit and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz argued that the vote was illegal for two reasons: because the agenda for the cabinet meeting had called for the ministers to discuss the appointment of Gantz to the position, and because the principle of balance required the decision to be accepted by both blocs that comprise the government.

Netanyahu, however, argued that he had proposed making Akunis justice minister only after Gantz had pulled out of a compromise reached prior to Tuesday's cabinet meeting.

Attorney David Peter of the Kohelet Forum, who represents Netanyahu, said in court: "The decision is legally valid. The government regulations allow it – the subject, not [specific] names, must be brought to the cabinet. This does not require any mechanism of balance."

Hayut scolded Peter, telling him that the attorney-general's decisions were binding so long as no court had ruled otherwise.

Peter responded that "the political field must be allowed to play out."

Judge Uzi Fogelman said, "This is a legal-constitutional matter. We are not wading into the field of politics at all, we are talking about respecting the law."

Later, Hayut said, "There is a need to maintain vital governmental continuity. It is impossible to continue in a government void like this one."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Peter countered that the cabinet had "fully complied" with a previous court ruling, which was why the meeting had been held in the first place, and said that Netanyahu was requesting another 48 hours to "revisit" the issue. Hayut responded, "What will happen in 48 hours that hasn't happened since Thursday, when we first convened to discuss the issue?"

Chairman of the Movement for Quality Government Eliad Sraga also attended the court discussion, and said, "Despite the balance in the government, a decision was made that directly went against the position of the attorney-general and what was agreed on by both sides of the government, both of which are required by law. Therefore, the 'appointment' is ineligible in principle."

Sraga added that the petitioners asked that Gantz retain the responsibilities of justice minister for the time being.

Prior to the court discussion, Netanyahu gave a televised press conference in which he said that in accordance with a High Court decision from last week, he had convened the cabinet to discuss the selection of a justice minister.

"Before the meeting, I agreed with Gantz that we needed 48 hours to try and agree on a candidate. Benny went back on that agreement during the meeting. After he did, I still tried to reach a compromise. When we didn't, we brought the matter to a vote – one candidate was approved, and another was not," he said.

The post Netanyahu steps back, agrees to appoint Gantz justice minister appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"When necessary – for example, to oust a justice minister who is not favored by the system – cases were pulled out and detailed were leaked to certain journalists. Always the same journalists. All so that the politicians labeled will always remember that a sword is at their throats. If that's not extortion, I don't know what is," Ohana said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Ohana went on to accuse the "prosecution within the prosecution of setting its schedule according to the agenda of the political system, election dates, and when the government will be formed. In doing so, it is making itself a political player – a player that is not elected by the public."

Ohana also had criticism for Attorney Liat Ben Ari, who was absent from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's pre-indictment hearing earlier this month because she was on vacation with her family.

"The prosecution within the prosecution is on vacation during the hearing and according to the leaks – again, leaks – made up her mind before she read and responded to the many materials [presented]. It makes no difference what arguments were presented in the hearing," he said.

Ohana said he had asked to investigate the leaks from the Netanyahu investigations but consistently encountered a refusal by law enforcement.

"In the past few months, I've suggested polygraph tests. I took those tests when I was serving with the Shin Bet [security agency], and thousands of others – including employees of the Shin Bet, the Mossad, the IDF, and even the police – take them. If it's OK for them, why not officials in the State Attorney's Office? … I suggested printing out transcripts of all the phone conversations of anyone in the [State Attorney's Office] who had access to the information that was leaked. I got a blanket refusal," Ohana said.

Addressing his remarks to Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, Ohana said, "I'm appealing to you and asking for an impartial investigation … there have been dozens, possibly hundreds, of leaks to various media outlets over the past three years. Sir, every one of these violations carries a possible punishment of three years in prison – we're talking about hundreds of years!"

Ohana also touched on how people would react to his impassioned speech.

"How can a justice minister say such things about the entire system he's in charge of? [They will ask] And I say, how can a justice minister turn a blind eye?"

Mendelblit put out an official condemnation of Ohana's speech, speaking on his own behalf as well as Nitzan's: "We regret deeply the remarks the justice minister made this evening. We reject the attempt to besmirch the work of police and justice officials, without any basis in fact. The law enforcement system will not be dragged into politics, just like it never has in the past. No one will deter us from doing our work faithfully."

The post Justice minister hammers law enforcement in impassioned speech appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.