Police Investigations Department Leaves the State Prosecutor’s Office, What the New Law Says and How Likely It Is to Be Struck Down

The law transferring the Police Internal Investigations Department, known as Mazh, from the State Prosecutor’s Office to the authority of the Justice Ministry passed overnight. The law is part of the judicial overhaul promoted by Justice Minister Yariv Levin since the government was formed. ● The investigation into May Golan has ended, police believe there is evidence ● “We identified quite a few faults”: the legal adviser opposes advancing the broadcast law

The Knesset plenum approved in second and third readings the bill to amend the Police Ordinance submitted by MK Moshe Saada. Forty-three lawmakers supported the proposal, while 39 opposed it. The Movement for Quality Government filed a petition against the law this morning. What does the law say? What are the concerns about it? Why did the government seek to change the current situation? And what is the chance that the High Court of Justice will strike down the law? Globes explains.

What does the law say?

Mazh investigates criminal offenses by police officers and brings them to trial. Unusually, the investigative and prosecutorial body operate under the same department. Today, Mazh operates under the State Prosecutor’s Office, with the state prosecutor and the attorney general responsible for it. The new law transfers the department to the Justice Ministry, under the responsibility of the justice minister.

The head of the department will be appointed through an appointments committee appointed by the justice minister or the director general of his ministry, who is his trusted ally. The head of Mazh will serve one term of six years. The committee will be chaired by the director general of the Justice Ministry or his representative, and its members will include a lawyer who represents defendants in criminal trials, appointed by the justice minister in consultation with the Public Defender; a retired Supreme Court or district court judge, appointed by the chair of the Knesset State Control Committee; a person with investigative experience, appointed by the Civil Service Commissioner in consultation with the director general of the Justice Ministry; and the Civil Service Commissioner or his representative. This gives a majority to those appointed by the justice minister or the director general of his office. This arrangement gives the minister effective control over the appointment of the person heading the body and over ending their term.

The criminal powers currently held by the attorney general or the prosecution in cases handled by Mazh will be transferred to the head of the department. The law expands the range of offenses within Mazh’s authority, and stipulates that its budget will be managed as part of the Justice Ministry’s budget and set by the minister. In addition, a new post is created, the “Commissioner for Coordination on the Investigation of Police Officers,” who will be appointed and removed through the same mechanism influenced by a political figure.

Why was the law changed, according to Levin and Saada?

According to them, there are inherent conflicts of interest in Mazh being subordinate to the prosecution. Levin sees the law as “an important part of the judicial reform, which restores the separation of powers and strengthens democracy.” In their view, Mazh is not functioning properly today, and systemic failures identified in the State Comptroller’s report have emerged there.

What is the concern?

The main concern is that this is a move to politically take over a law enforcement body. In other words, instead of professional considerations, the government’s political considerations will influence how the law is enforced.

Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara said at the Israel Bar Association conference in Eilat last week that the law splitting the attorney general’s role and the Mazh law share the same goal and complement each other, political control over law enforcement bodies and criminal justice. “Instead of independent law enforcement, we will get law enforcement that is heavily influenced by political interests and the needs of the current government and the ministers themselves.”

Until now, Mazh had been professionally subordinate to the attorney general and the state prosecutor, which ensured its independence from the political level. The concern is that subjecting the appointment and dismissal mechanisms to the government will turn it from a professional enforcement body into one exposed to political influence.

While Levin and Saada present taking Mazh out of the prosecution as a step that will bring neutrality to investigations, in practice it transfers control of the department to the government. The need to change Mazh’s mode of operation has been discussed in various professional reports, including the State Comptroller’s report. It was indeed recommended that it be organizationally separated from the State Prosecutor’s Office, but it was not recommended that Mazh be subordinated to the political echelon.

The concern is that political, rather than professional, considerations will affect both appointments and enforcement. There is also concern that Mazh investigators will be deterred from handling cases involving people in power and their associates. Such deterrence could reduce investigations into corruption involving ministers and Knesset members. The meaning of a politicized Mazh could also be increased enforcement by police against groups not favored by the government, for example during protests.

What are the chances the High Court will intervene?

Political considerations entering law enforcement harm the rule of law. Therefore, if the mechanism set out in the law could indeed lead to political interference, there is a possibility that the High Court of Justice will strike it down. There are precedents for High Court intervention in legislation and even in Basic Laws.

However, most laws struck down by the High Court were laws that violated equality. The High Court has already intervened in some of the laws advanced as part of the judicial overhaul declared by Levin, and the Mazh law is part of it. That was the case with the elimination of the reasonableness standard, even though it was a Basic Law.

In addition, last year the High Court struck down a section of an amendment to the Police Ordinance intended to regulate the police’s subordination to the minister, the “Ben Gvir law.”

The new northern project that real estate investors should note: Globes is committed to a diverse, substantive and respectful discourse in accordance with the ethical code appearing in the trust report on which we operate. Expressions of violence, racism, incitement or any other inappropriate discourse are automatically filtered and will not be published on the site.