Justice Minister Yariv Levin sent a letter on Motzei Shabbos to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara informing her that she is prohibited from any involvement in matters related to the Sde Teiman affair—including the leak investigation, the alleged obstruction of justice, and the tampering with judicial proceedings in the case.

Levin wrote that his order is based on his authority under Section 23A of the Civil Service Law, which deals with assigning the duties of an official who is barred from handling a certain matter to another state employee.

“This ban stems from your personal involvement in the matters under investigation in the Sde Teiman affair and the high probability that your testimony will be required in this matter. In addition, it also stems from your alleged personal involvement and/or that of your subordinates in acts of obstruction and interference in judicial and investigative proceedings following the video leak, including apparently false statements made in your responses to the Supreme Court.”

Levin noted in the letter that Baharav-Miara had submitted an allegedly false affidavit to the Supreme Court on September 16, 2025, claiming that the investigation into the source of the leak “had been exhausted” and “no additional investigative steps were necessary to clarify the claims and uncover the truth.”

She also stated, “No indication whatsoever was found regarding the source of the information leak.”

Levin stated, “Since the identity of the leaker was discovered through a basic investigative measure, it is clear that this statement to the Supreme Court was false.”

Levin questioned, “How did you know to write in your response to the Supreme Court the background to the leaked video ten months before the Military Advocate General admitted that this was the motive for the leak? Clearly, this question requires an investigation and clarification of the facts, including from you personally.”

He continued: “You apparently chose to shield the former Military Advocate General from any independent or external review, leaving the inquiry in the hands of someone directly subordinate to her—a clear conflict of interest. This approach, particularly coming from someone who has acted with extreme rigidity in other alleged conflict-of-interest cases, raises serious questions about your conduct and motives and unquestionably requires explanation during the investigation.”

“It is necessary to examine your personal involvement in the review process, as well as that of your subordinates—whether you met with the outgoing Military Advocate General, whether you discussed the matter with her, whether you instructed anyone to investigate or question her or those close to her, or whether you refrained from doing so. In general, what did you know about the affair? It is self-evident that neither you nor your subordinates can be involved in examining these or other questions.”

“You apparently chose to submit this response to the Supreme Court without exhausting the options for preparing a professional report, including consulting with the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism. You seemingly prevented the Supreme Court from being exposed to the truth about the enormous damage caused worldwide by the defamatory video leak,” Levin concluded.

Unsurprisingly, Baharav-Miara rejected Levin’s order, claiming via a letter sent by Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon that he lacks the authority to ban her from involvement in the affair and that she will investigate the affair together with State Attorney Amit Aisman and the head of the police investigative department. The letter did not address Levin’s concerns or questions regarding Baharav-Miara’s involvement in the case.

Minister Levin responded: “I categorically reject the Attorney General’s claims. Baharav-Miara is ostensibly in a sharp conflict of interest, as is clear from the letter, and must refrain from any involvement in the investigation. If she claims that she was not involved at any stage in this matter, she should state that clearly. The fact that she did not write this in her letter testifies unequivocally to the existence of a conflict of interest.”

The conflict will likely reach the Supreme Court, the same entity that refused to allow the government to dismiss Baharav-Miara from her position.

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)