Israeli Attorney General Seeks Freeze on Police Investigations Reform Law Over Democratic Concerns

The Israeli Attorney General requested the Supreme Court on Monday to issue an interim injunction halting the implementation of a new law restructuring the Police Investigations Department (Mahash). The law aims to create a new unit to investigate police officers, Shin Bet personnel, and civilians involved in suspicions, placing it under the administrative authority of the Justice Minister and his office. The Attorney General warned that proceeding with appointments and unit formation could cause irreparable harm, even if the law is later repealed.

The petition, submitted amid ongoing legal challenges by the Movement for Quality Government, the Academia for a Democratic Israel, 23 retired senior police officers, and the Bar Association, argues that the law effectively dismantles the current Mahash and establishes a politically influenced investigative and prosecutorial body. The Attorney General stated the law severely undermines core democratic principles such as equality before the law and impartial law enforcement.

Concerns were raised about a chilling effect on police officers, investigators, prosecutors, Shin Bet agents, lawyers, and journalists. The coexistence of the existing Mahash and the new unit could lead to organizational chaos, decision-making paralysis in sensitive cases, and operational paralysis. Although some provisions are set to take effect later, significant steps have already been taken, including the publication of a call for candidates for the unit’s director on June 25 and the appointment of some committee members responsible for selecting personnel.

The Attorney General emphasized that these developments are occurring during the election period following the Knesset’s dissolution on July 16, potentially allowing the current government to influence appointments for years. Beyond the temporary freeze request, the Attorney General advocates for the entire law’s annulment, arguing that the problems stem from the law’s overall framework rather than isolated sections. The Supreme Court was urged to halt all further implementation until the petitions are fully heard and decided.