Petitions were filed with the High Court of Justice on Thursday against the newly passed law restructuring the Justice Ministry’s Police Investigation Department (known by its Hebrew acronym Mahash), in a case that goes to the heart of who oversees the police – and how independent that oversight will be.
Mahash is the body responsible for investigating suspected criminal offenses by police officers, including cases involving alleged police violence, corruption, abuse of authority, and unlawful use of force at protests. In certain cases, it also investigates suspected offenses by Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) personnel.
For that reason, the fight over the new law is not only about where Mahash sits on an organizational chart. Opponents argue that the law could affect the public’s ability to trust that complaints against police officers are handled professionally, equally, and without political pressure – particularly in sensitive cases involving demonstrations, elected officials, or law-enforcement officials themselves.
The Knesset passed the amendment to the Police Ordinance late Wednesday night, removing Mahash from the State Attorney’s Office and turning it into a separate unit within the Justice Ministry.
Supporters of the law say that the move is necessary because Mahash’s current placement inside the State Attorney’s Office creates conflicts of interest: prosecutors work closely with police investigators in criminal cases, while Mahash is supposed to investigate police misconduct. They say the reform is intended to make Mahash more independent and effective.
Law solves a conflict, creates a more dangerous one
Opponents argue that the law solves one alleged conflict of interest by creating a more dangerous one. While they agree that Mahash needs reform, they say the coalition’s version exposes the body that investigates police officers to political influence, particularly through the mechanism for appointing and removing its leadership.
That concern was echoed on Thursday morning by State Attorney Amit Aisman, who sent a letter to Mahash employees after the law passed, stressing that the department’s professionalism, independent judgment, and ability to act “without fear or favor” remain essential to public trust in law enforcement.
The Movement for Quality Government filed one of the first petitions against the law, asking the High Court to issue a conditional order requiring the Knesset and the joint Constitution-National Security Committee to explain why the amendment should not be canceled.
Alternatively, the movement asked the court to cancel the provisions governing the appointment and removal of the Mahash director and the newly created official responsible for coordinating police-investigation matters, arguing that these are the clauses that most directly undermine the department’s independence.
The movement also asked for an expedited hearing, saying that practical implementation steps could begin shortly after the law comes into effect.
Keshet Neev contributed to this report.