A-G asks High Court to freeze law separating police investigations unit from prosecution

BySARAH BEN-NUNJULY 27, 2026 17:56Updated: JULY 27, 2026 19:35The High Court of Justice should temporarily freeze a law separating the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigation Department from the State Attorney’s Office, Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara argued on Monday, warning that it would create a “political prosecution unit” capable of intimidating police officers, investigators, prosecutors and journalists.In a 47-page response to requests for an interim order, the Attorney-General’s Office said the law was not merely an organizational reform that could be reversed if the petitions against it were later accepted. Rather, it immediately begins dismantling PID in its current form and creating a new investigation and prosecution body with sweeping powers and direct dependence on the political level.Baharav-Miara asked the court to block all steps toward implementing the law, including appointing the selection committee, advancing the appointments of the unit’s new director and coordinator, establishing the department and setting its budget, until the petitions are decided.The Knesset passed the law on June 11 by a vote of 43-39. Sponsored by Likud MK Moshe Saada, a former deputy head of the department, it removes PID from the State Attorney’s Office and establishes it as a separate Justice Ministry unit with its own budget and authority to investigate and prosecute criminal offenses committed by police officers.Law transfers powers to department directorIt also transfers powers currently held by the attorney-general and state attorney in PID cases to the department’s director, and creates a coordinator for police investigations. The coordinator would resolve disputes between PID and other investigative or prosecutorial bodies and could order criminal files transferred between them.Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara attends a House committee meeting at the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament in Jerusalem on, June 8, 2026. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)Saada and other supporters have argued that the current structure creates an inherent conflict of interest because prosecutors work closely with senior police officers whom PID may later investigate. They described the separation as necessary to ensure someone can “guard the guards,” address longstanding failures and restore public trust.PID has faced years of criticism over its effectiveness and dependence on the police for intelligence personnel, training, operational tools and access to databases. A 2023 State Comptroller report called for a broad examination of its institutional structure.A government-appointed team that reported in February 2025 also found problems in the existing model. A majority recommended structurally separating PID from the State Attorney’s Office, while stressing that any replacement must enjoy full independence and protection from outside pressure. The minority warned that removing an enforcement body from the attorney-general and prosecution framework without a strong alternative institutional shield could create a dangerous vacuum.The Attorney-General’s Office argued that the law adopted the recommendation to separate PID while abandoning the safeguards around which both sides of that professional debate agreed.Under the amendment, the director and coordinator are to be chosen by a five-member committee chaired by the Justice Ministry director-general, a political appointee and close subordinate of the justice minister. Baharav-Miara said the minister would directly or indirectly influence three of the committee’s five appointments. The same structure could remove the two officials, while the ministry would control the unit’s budget and administration.The filing argued this would leave officials responsible for sensitive criminal decisions aware that their appointments, continued tenure and resources depend on figures tied to the minister.The coordinator’s powers were described as particularly far-reaching. Because complaints against police investigators often arise during broader criminal probes, the filing said the coordinator could prioritize a PID investigation, delay another investigation or transfer a case away from the attorney-general’s authority. The department could also investigate civilians connected to suspected police offenses, potentially including prosecutors, lawyers and journalists.PID established in 1992PID was established in 1992 under the State Attorney’s Office, replacing the police’s internal-investigations division. The purpose was to prevent police officers from investigating colleagues within the same organization. It currently investigates suspected criminal offenses by police officers, certain offenses involving Shin Bet personnel and civilians suspected of acting together with police.The petitions were filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel; two academic groups together with 23 retired senior police commanders; and the Israel Bar Association.Although portions of the new structure are due to become operational later, the state argued that its core has already taken effect. A call for candidates for PID director was published on June 25, and the appointment process may advance before the court rules.That, the filing said, could paralyze the existing department, deter staff from making decisions in sensitive cases and prompt experienced investigators and prosecutors to leave. The risk was especially serious, it added, because PID is handling publicly sensitive cases and the changes are being implemented during an election period.Keeping PID’s current structure temporarily intact would cause no comparable harm, Baharav-Miara argued. Once appointments are made and investigative decisions are shaped by the new system, she said, the damage could not simply be undone after a final judgment.Follow us on Google