Attorney-general urges High Court to block PID appointments, warns of politicization

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara asked the High Court of Justice on Tuesday to prevent two senior appointments to the restructured Police Investigation Department from advancing during the election period, arguing that the process risks politicizing a sensitive law-enforcement body and binding the next government.

Her filing was submitted in response to Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s position that the appointments should proceed before the October 27 election.

The court already temporarily prohibited any new steps in the appointment process while it considers requests for an interim injunction. A hearing on the underlying petitions is scheduled for December 28 before Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Dafna Barak-Erez.

Because that hearing will take place two months after the election, the immediate question is whether the appointments will remain frozen in the meantime.

The appointments are for the director of the restructured PID and a new senior official responsible for resolving disputes involving investigations of police officers. They are central to implementing a law passed in June that removes PID from the State Attorney’s Office and establishes it as a separate body within the Justice Ministry.

AG seeks to halt PID appointments during election period

Baharav-Miara is asking it both to preserve the existing structure while the petitions are considered, and to rule separately that the appointments cannot proceed during the election period. Levin argued that the usual restrictions on major appointments before an election should not apply with the same force because the Knesset completed its term and the government continues to enjoy its confidence. Unlike a caretaker government formed after an early election was called, he argued, the government retains its full authority.

Baharav-Miara rejected that distinction, arguing that election-period restrictions are not based solely on whether the government still commands a parliamentary majority. Rather, they are also intended to prevent political officials from making last-minute appointments, securing positions of influence, limiting the next government’s options or creating the appearance that public appointments are being used for electoral purposes.

Those concerns apply whenever a government is operating during an election campaign, she said, regardless of whether the election was called early or is being held as scheduled.

Baharav-Miara also rejected Levin’s argument that the positions would be filled by an independent professional committee rather than by the minister or government.

She said Levin has direct or indirect influence over three of the committee’s five members.

Justice Ministry Director-General Itamar Donenfeld, a political appointee who holds a position of trust under Levin, chairs the committee. A second member was selected by Levin. A third was formally appointed by the Civil Service commissioner, but Donenfeld presented the commissioner with one candidate, accompanied by the candidate’s résumé and a legal opinion supporting the appointment.

The commissioner interviewed the candidate and made the appointment. Baharav-Miara did not allege that he failed to exercise his own judgment, but argued that Donenfeld’s presentation of a single completed candidacy gave Levin’s office substantial influence over the selection.

She described Levin’s assertion that his involvement was limited to appointing one committee member as inconsistent with how the committee was assembled.

AG argues committee formation cannot be completed during election period

The committee has not yet been completed because the representative selected by the chairman of the Knesset State Control Committee has not been appointed. Baharav-Miara argued that its establishment was therefore not completed before the election period and should not now be completed during it.

Her objection extends beyond the identities of the two officials, however. She argued that appointing them would begin the practical establishment of the new PID before the court has a chance to rule on the legislation. The officials would help determine the new body’s procedures, working arrangements and institutional character, creating facts on the ground that could be difficult to reverse, she argued.

She said the restructuring could also have an immediate chilling effect on police officers, investigators and prosecutors and disrupt the existing department while sensitive cases remain pending.

Levin maintained that the appointments are professional, that implementing legislation enacted by the Knesset cannot be treated as an improper political act and that the next Knesset would remain free to amend or repeal the law.

Baharav-Miara responded that the formal ability to repeal legislation does not eliminate the practical consequences of making long-term appointments and beginning to construct a new law-enforcement body.

The PID director would serve a six-year term, while the coordinating official would serve for three years. The appointments committee would also have the authority to end their tenure and appoint replacements.

Baharav-Miara further disputed Levin’s claim that the appointments are urgent because of deficiencies in the existing PID and the timetable set by the law.

She noted that the deadline for applications for PID director had been extended three times, by more than a month in total, while the application process for the coordinating position had not yet opened. The existing department continues to operate under an experienced acting director, she said, leaving no immediate leadership vacuum.

Legal timeline gives government option to postpone appointments

The law provides eight months for establishing the new body, ending on February 15, 2027, with the possibility of a further four-month extension. Baharav-Miara argued that the appointments could therefore be advanced after a new government is formed.

She also rejected comparisons drawn by Levin to the appointment of former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi and the approval of Israel’s maritime agreement with Lebanon during the 2022 election period.

Halevi’s appointment followed professional findings that the IDF could not operate without a permanent chief of staff and that an acting appointment was not a viable alternative, she said. The maritime agreement was supported by security officials who identified a limited diplomatic and security opportunity that might not recur.

No comparable urgency exists in the PID case, Baharav-Miara argued, because the existing department remains operational and the restructuring can still be carried out after the election.

The High Court must now decide whether to convert the temporary restraint into an interim injunction lasting while the petitions proceed. The broader challenge to the PID law will remain unresolved until at least the December 28 hearing.