Israeli Law to Weaken Attorney General Powers Faces Criticism for Undermining Rule of Law

The Israeli Knesset is currently debating a revised bill that would significantly reduce the powers of the Attorney General (AG), transferring key legal interpretation and decision-making authority to the government. This softened version of the original proposal, which sought to dismantle the AG’s role entirely by splitting it into three separate positions and granting the government unlimited power to appoint and dismiss legal advisors, still raises serious constitutional concerns.

The bill primarily addresses two issues: the legal status of the AG’s opinions and the government’s representation in the Supreme Court when the AG deems government policy unlawful. It also mandates that the government set the procedures for appointing and dismissing the AG, though details on this remain vague. Under the proposal, the AG’s legal opinions would bind public officials only if the government agrees, and the AG would represent the government in court unless the government decides otherwise.

Professor Barak Medina, a former dean and rector at the Hebrew University Faculty of Law, warns that this shift threatens the rule of law by allowing the government to decide whether it will be bound by legal constraints. Tens of thousands of public servants, including police, military, and civil servants, could face pressure to obey government directives over the law. This could enable corruption, favoritism, discrimination, and violations of human rights, as the government would hold the "final word" on legal matters.

Medina argues that weakening the AG’s authority will reduce transparency and discourage officials from consulting the AG, as their opinions would no longer be mandatory or necessarily represented in court. He stresses that while the AG can err, the risk of the government misinterpreting the law is far greater. The AG has historically served as a critical safeguard for democracy and human rights in Israel.

Furthermore, the bill could lead to increased judicial review, as the Supreme Court would have to scrutinize government actions more closely without the AG’s binding legal guidance. This would paradoxically expand judicial oversight while simultaneously increasing risks of arbitrary government decisions and rights violations. Medina concludes that all Israeli citizens have a vested interest in limiting government power and ensuring its accountability to the law.