The High Court of Justice on Tuesday ordered Justice Minister Yariv Levin to clarify whether he intends to advance senior appointments to the Police Investigation Department (PID) before the October 27 election.
Levin and the Attorney-General’s Office were given until Sunday to state whether they plan to proceed with appointments created under the law separating the department, known in Hebrew by the acronym Mahash, from the State Attorney’s Office.
The court specifically asked whether the government intends to appoint the department’s director, members of the committee that will select the director, and a retired judge responsible for coordinating investigations involving police officers.
The three-justice panel said the response must address Supreme Court precedent requiring particular restraint in senior public-sector appointments during an election period. It will decide how to continue handling the petitions after receiving the filing; at present, it is seeking to establish whether Levin plans to move forward before deciding whether temporary intervention is necessary.
The order was issued by Supreme Court Chief Justice Isaac Amit, Deputy Chief Justice Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez as part of three petitions challenging the restructuring of the department.
The petitions were filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Academia for Democratic Israel and other petitioners, and the Israel Bar Association. They have asked the court to suspend implementation while their broader challenges are considered.
Israeli law does not impose an absolute prohibition on appointments during an election period. Courts have, however, required governments to exercise greater restraint when making senior or long-term appointments that could bind the next government. Appointments may still proceed where a position must urgently be filled or where delay would significantly harm the public interest.
Law removes PID from State Attorney’s Office, establishes separate Justice Ministry
The law, passed by the Knesset in June, removes PID from the State Attorney’s Office and establishes it as a separate Justice Ministry department with authority to investigate suspected crimes by police officers and prosecute cases arising from those investigations.
Its supporters argue that the existing structure creates an inherent conflict of interest because prosecutors work closely with the police in ordinary criminal cases while overseeing the body responsible for investigating police misconduct.
They say separating PID from the prosecution will strengthen its independence, improve public confidence and allow it to investigate police officers without relying on officials who routinely cooperate with them.
Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara and the petitioners argue that the new structure would replace that possible conflict with political dependence.
They contend that Levin would have substantial influence over the committee responsible for selecting the department’s director, while the Justice Ministry would control the department’s budget and administration. In their view, that arrangement could affect the independence of officials handling politically sensitive investigations.
A-G asks High Court to freeze steps to establish new department
The attorney-general has asked the court to freeze the selection committee, the senior appointments and other steps required to establish the new department until the petitions are decided.
The government and Knesset argue that the legislation falls within the Knesset’s authority to restructure law-enforcement bodies and that the court should not prevent the law from taking effect before examining the full arguments against it.
The Movement for Quality Government welcomed Tuesday’s order.
Movement chairman Eliad Shraga said the decision showed that election-period appointment rules could not be disregarded, particularly in relation to a sensitive law-enforcement position. He said that if Levin proceeds with the appointment process, the court may have to rule on the petitioners’ request for an interim order.
“PID must remain an independent body,” Shraga said, adding that irreversible steps should not be taken before the court rules on the petitions or voters go to the polls.
Levin and the Attorney-General’s Office are required to file their response by August 9. The court will then decide whether to issue temporary orders, request further arguments or schedule the petitions for continued consideration.