Israeli Attorney General Urges Supreme Court to Suspend Controversial Police Investigations Law

Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has called on the Supreme Court to issue an interim injunction preventing the implementation of the new Police Investigations Department (Mahash) law. She warns that the law aims to establish a politically controlled prosecution body that would intimidate police officers, investigators, prosecutors, and journalists. Baharav-Miara argues that such political interference threatens human rights and undermines the legitimacy of the state's coercive power in criminal proceedings.

In her response to the court, she cited Judge Alex Stein's warning about the dangers of politicizing criminal law, describing it as a hallmark of authoritarian regimes. She emphasized that investigators, prosecutors, and related professionals require institutional protections to ensure fairness and prevent political bias, which is essential for public trust. The law, she said, effectively creates a powerful, separate investigative and prosecutorial unit without professional oversight, directly subordinate to the Minister of Justice and the ministry's director general, who controls its budget and dismissal procedures.

Baharav-Miara highlighted that the law removes safeguards by placing this law enforcement body under political appointees, raising concerns about interference in investigations inconvenient to the government. She also criticized the timing of the law's implementation during an election period, which she said exacerbates risks of politicization. The law was passed about six weeks ago but has not yet taken effect; it is scheduled to be implemented by the next Knesset. Meanwhile, a tender for appointing the new head of Mahash has been published by the Justice Minister.

The Attorney General's position supports petitioners seeking to freeze all processes related to the law, including the appointment of Mahash's head, until a final court ruling. The law aims to remove Mahash from the Attorney General's Office and place it under the administrative control of the Justice Minister and the ministry's director general. While the judiciary views the law as a major judicial reform enacted against the government's legal advice, supporters argue it is a necessary amendment.