State Prosecutor Amit Isman delivered a sharp attack on government-backed steps affecting the justice system during the Haifa Law Conference on Thursday, focusing on the new Internal Police Investigations Department law, known as the Majen law, and the proposal to split the role of the attorney general. He said rule of law is tested “in times of disagreement,” especially when society is polarized and every legal decision quickly becomes a political dispute.
Isman said law enforcement now faces a dual challenge, fighting government corruption, organized crime, crime in Arab society, sensitive investigations and financial offenses, while also coping with growing social polarization, deliberate efforts to erode public trust, and repeated attempts to drag legal rulings into politics. He stressed that the State Attorney’s Office works on evidence alone, saying, “Noise is not evidence. A headline is not an evidentiary basis. And the number of likes or shares is not a legal test.”
He added that in the social media era every investigation becomes a public battlefield, but “the State Attorney’s Office does not operate by algorithm, it operates by evidence.” He said the law does not change according to who is under investigation, and that decisions are made only on evidence and law, not public pressure, headlines, opinion columns, abusive posts, or the identity, status, power, or political affiliation of those involved. He also criticized elected officials who automatically back suspects or disrupt court proceedings, saying such behavior undermines the legitimacy of all enforcement and justice institutions.
Turning to corruption, Isman said public corruption is not only a criminal offense but an attack on the foundations of government. “No one is above the law, even when he is powerful,” he said. On the Majen law, he warned that it raises “a real concern” about weakening the institutional independence of the body that investigates police officers, especially if it is structurally, budgetarily, and managerially dependent on political officials. He also questioned the new mechanism for appointing the department head and said the law could create a “chilling effect” on prosecutors and investigators handling sensitive cases. He concluded that the Majen law and the attorney general split proposal raise the same core question, how to preserve the independence of enforcement and legal advisory institutions in a democracy.
