Former police chiefs petition High Court against new police investigations law, saying it undermines independence

After the Knesset passed, in second and third readings overnight, the bill to remove the Police Internal Investigations Department, known as Mahash, from the State Attorney’s Office and reestablish it as a department in the Justice Ministry under the authority of the justice minister, the first petitions were already filed today (Thursday) with the High Court of Justice against the move, along with a request for interim orders. In a petition filed this morning, the Movement for Quality Government alleged that the amendment to the law “severely harms Mahash’s independence by subordinating it to political actors, and thereby also harms the independence of the police and the Shin Bet organization, which are overseen by Mahash, in a way that amounts to a severe and disproportionate violation of human rights.”

At midday, another petition was filed by many petitioners, including 23 former police commissioners and deputy commissioners, among them former police chiefs Moshe Karadi, Ronnie Alsheich, Shlomo Aharonishki and Rafi Peled, together with the Academy for a Democratic Israel and the Beshaar organization. In this petition, filed through attorneys Yossi Ashkenazi, Dr. Moran Yemini and Abigail Zeifman of Herzog Fox & Neeman, the petitioners ask the High Court to issue an order nisi and an interim order suspending the validity of the amendment to the Police Ordinance passed by the Knesset, and to instruct Justice Minister Yariv Levin “to refrain from taking any action that would implement the amendment,” such as establishing a committee to select the new head of Mahash and taking steps to separate Mahash from the State Attorney’s Office and establish it in its new format.

The petition says the move “fundamentally changes Mahash’s status, severely harms its independence, effectively subordinates it to the political echelon, and opens the door to the intrusion of extraneous considerations into the core powers of investigation and prosecution.” According to the petitioners, the amendment “creates political ties and points of influence regarding the appointment of the department head, the stability of his tenure, the department’s budget, and even concrete decisions concerning the exercise of criminal enforcement authority.” It further says that “these arrangements create a clear institutional dependence between an investigative and prosecutorial body that serves as an essential institutional brake against abuse of governmental power, and the political echelon, while harming the core independence and professionalism of Mahash and creating concern that investigative and prosecutorial powers will not be exercised solely on the basis of professional and relevant considerations, but under the shadow of extraneous considerations that do not stem from the public interest for which these powers were granted.”

The petitions note that the legislative amendment, advanced as a private bill by MK Moshe Saada, passed despite the explicit opposition of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, State Attorney Amit Isman and the legal adviser to the Constitution Committee, and contrary to the professional opinions of former heads of Mahash. In addition, it says the amendment also deviates from the conclusions of the team appointed by Levin himself to examine the department’s activity, following the publication of the State Comptroller’s report in 2023, which identified failings in Mahash’s operations in its current format.

According to the petitioners, “even if the declared purpose of the amendment is to strengthen Mahash’s independence, in practice it weakens Mahash’s independence, deepens its ties to the political echelon, harms the unity of the criminal prosecution system and its independence, undermines fundamental principles of the system, and causes a disproportionate injury to basic rights.”

According to attorney Stav Levana Leav from the Movement for Quality Government, which is behind one of the petitions, “instead of strengthening Mahash, the amendment makes it vulnerable to political influence and gives the justice minister unprecedented influence over the body that is supposed to oversee law enforcement. A body that investigates police officers must be independent of the political echelon. This is a basic condition for the rule of law and equality before the law.”

The law passed the Knesset overnight by a vote of 43 to 39, and it is another step in the legislation of the regime overhaul laws promoted by the government. Levin wrote overnight that this was “history,” and that the approval of the bill “constitutes a central part of the legal reform,” whose aim is to end “years of inherent conflicts of interest,” with the goal, he said, of having Mahash operate “as a completely independent unit in the Justice Ministry, without dependence on the State Attorney’s Office.”

The law is set to take effect eight months after its publication, and the justice minister, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, may postpone its commencement by an additional four months. However, it was decided that the committee for appointing the head of Mahash and the coordinator for police-investigation matters would be established immediately upon publication of the law, in order to allow the necessary steps for setting up the department.

Today, State Attorney Amit Isman sent a letter to Mahash employees, in which he noted that “throughout the legislative process, I and many professional officials in the law-enforcement system presented professional positions, comments and reservations regarding the bill, its implications and its consequences for the law-enforcement system in the State of Israel.” However, he noted that “the Knesset decided the issue, and the law establishes a significant transition and preparation period during which the various state authorities will be required to deal with the legal, organizational and practical aspects related to its implementation.”

He said that “the importance of Mahash rests on its professionalism, the relevance of its work, the independence of its judgment, and its ability to act without fear and without bias. These values are a basic condition for public trust in law-enforcement systems and are essential to the department’s continued role in the future.” Isman concluded that “the State Attorney’s Office will continue to act responsibly and with statecraft, within the law and in accordance with future developments.”