Solberg rejected Yara's request to delete the petition • Boaron: This time they will not interrogate themselves

Chaim Twill
November 7, 2025   
Photo: 
Yonatan Sindel/Flash90

MK Avichai Boaron and the Lavi organization submitted an urgent request to the High Court of Justice today (Friday) for an interim order, with the aim of preventing the Legal Advisor to the Government, Attorney Gali Baharav-Miara, from transferring the investigation into the "Maz" affair to the responsibility of the State Attorney's Office.

Judge Noam Solberg ordered that a hearing on the matter be held by this coming Tuesday.

Tonight, almost 3 hours late, Gali Baharav-Miara submitted a response to the High Court of Justice to a petition asking her to withdraw from dealing with the Magharit affair.

In her response, the Attorney General requested that the petition be deleted - since she entrusted the investigation to the State Attorney's Office. "Given that I have withdrawn from supervising the investigation, the relief sought within the framework of the conditional order in the petition is no longer relevant, and therefore this petition should be deleted.".

The petition, filed through attorneys Yitzhak Bam and Yosef Ben-Baruch, claims that although the consultant announced that she was withdrawing from further involvement in the case due to a conflict of interest, she is in fact maintaining indirect control over the investigation by appointing the state attorney - who is professionally subordinate to her - as the person overseeing the investigation.

The petitioners claim that this is a "move that circumvents a conflict of interest" and that "the person being investigated cannot choose her investigators.".

The petition cites an opinion from the Ministry of Justice's legal advisor, who stated that Bahar-Miyara has a real conflict of interest, since there is a chance that she herself will have to be questioned or explain her part in the affair.

According to the opinion, the consultant has a substantial influence on the nature of the investigation, the identity of those being investigated, and the approval of special investigative actions - therefore even indirect involvement could harm the independence of the investigation.

The petitioners add that despite the opinion, the advisor took advantage of the time given to her by the High Court of Justice to transfer the management of the case to the entity subordinate to her - the Public Prosecutor's Office. In doing so, they claim, she acted in a conflict of interest and contrary to the Civil Service (Appointments) Law, which states that when an officeholder is prevented from dealing with the matter due to a conflict of interest, the authority to appoint an acting minister is vested in the designated minister, in consultation with the Civil Service Commissioner.

Attorney Yitzhak Bam, one of the petitioners, sharply attacked the state's response to the High Court: "This is a spectacular display of horse-stealing intent, an attempt to obtain substantial advantages through procedural means. The advisor used the time to determine facts on the ground - contrary to the court's decision and in contempt.".

MK Avichai Boaron said, "We will not settle for anything less than removing the investigation from the legal system controlled by the Attorney General. We asked the court to issue an interim order that will prevent the prosecutor's office from dealing with the case until an independent and impartial body is appointed on behalf of the designated minister. Only in this way can a true and impartial investigation be ensured.".

After the judge's decision, the petitioners in the High Court, the Advocate General MK Avichai Boaron and the 'Lavi' organization, said: "We welcome Judge Solberg's decision, which rejected the Advocate General's request to strike out the petition and accepted our request for a hearing on the matter.".

MK Boaron: "The Legal Advisor to the Government and her subordinates, including the State Attorney, need to realize that this time they will not investigate themselves and cleanse themselves of the cloud of suspicion hanging over them as they have done to date. We have no doubt that the court will make this clear to them unequivocally.".


linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram