Israel's Supreme Court Halts Controversial Police Investigations Law

Israel's Supreme Court has issued an interim order temporarily freezing key provisions of a recently passed law concerning the Police Internal Investigations Department (Mahash). The decision, made by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, halts the immediate implementation of the law, which was passed by the Knesset approximately two and a half months ago. Justice Noam Sohlberg dissented from the majority ruling.

The law, considered a significant part of the government's judicial overhaul, faced strong opposition from the Attorney General's office. Critics argue that the law will accelerate the politicization of the police force, potentially turning officers into instruments of the ruling government rather than servants of the public. There are also concerns that it could deter investigations into corruption, as officers might fear repercussions for investigating senior officials.

The frozen legislation stipulates that Mahash will be re-established within the Ministry of Justice, separate from the State Prosecutor's Office. Its administrative and budgetary affairs will be directly subordinate to the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, Mahash employees will primarily be civilians, not seconded police officers, and will gain access to police intelligence systems under rules set by the Police Commissioner and the Mahash director.

Under the new law, criminal authority, including the power to stay proceedings against police officers, would transfer from the Attorney General and State Prosecutor to the Mahash director. However, Mahash would still be subject to the general directives of the Attorney General and State Prosecutor. The law also mandates that investigations into Shin Bet agents be transferred to Mahash, requiring approval from the Attorney General and the Mahash head, with a designated coordinator resolving disagreements.

Minister of Justice Yariv Levin sharply criticized the Supreme Court's decision, calling it an attempt by a "handful of Supreme Court justices" to cling to power after losing influence over judicial appointments and the ombudsman for judges. He accused the dissenting justices of trying to protect the "failed institution" of Mahash.