Attorney-general asks High Court to block PID appointments until after October elections

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has petitioned the High Court of Justice to halt the appointment of new leaders to the Police Investigations Department (PID) until after the October 27 elections. In a filing dated August 16, 2026, she argued that Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds excessive influence over the selection process, potentially allowing the current government to shape the leadership of a critical law enforcement body for years. The High Court has not yet issued a ruling on the request. The case involves multiple petitions challenging a law enacted in June that transferred PID from the State Attorney’s Office to direct oversight by the Justice Ministry. At stake are two key appointments: the director of the restructured department, whose term lasts six years, and a senior official tasked with resolving internal police investigation disputes, serving a three-year term. Baharav-Miara emphasized that making these decisions close to an election could enable the government to exert undue political control over PID, a unit designed to investigate alleged crimes by police officers. Such control, she warned, might discourage officers, investigators, and prosecutors, especially given the heightened security responsibilities during the electoral period. PID's independence is crucial to ensuring impartial investigations. The department is meant to operate free from political interference or internal police pressures. This independence is now under scrutiny due to the new law, which shifts authority to the Justice Ministry. Under the revised framework, a five-member committee will choose the two senior officials. However, Baharav-Miara contended that Levin or his office exerts significant influence over three of the committee’s members. The committee is chaired by the Justice Ministry director-general, Itamar Donenfeld, whom the attorney-general’s filing describes as holding a trusted position under Levin. Levin appointed a second committee member, a criminal-defense lawyer, after consulting with the national public defender. The filing detailed how Donenfeld played a central role in selecting a third member, who was formally appointed by the Civil Service commissioner. According to the filing, Donenfeld submitted a single candidate’s name, along with their resume and a legal opinion confirming no obstacles to the appointment. The commissioner conducted an interview and approved the candidate. While Baharav-Miara did not accuse the commissioner of failing to act independently, she argued that Donenfeld’s limited choice of candidates granted Levin’s office substantial sway over the third seat. This is particularly concerning because the committee may function with only three members, and it retains the power to remove the individuals it selects. The committee has not yet been fully formed. A recruitment process for the PID director began on June 25, but deadlines were repeatedly extended, with the latest set for August 16. No similar process exists for the second position. Baharav-Miara maintained that neither appointment is urgently needed before the election, as the current acting director ensures continuity and no functional vacancy exists. Citing past High Court rulings, she asserted that permanent appointments should typically be postponed during election periods unless there is an immediate necessity. While acknowledging that this election proceeds on schedule, unlike some earlier cases involving early elections, she insisted that the same principles apply. The ongoing legal battle underscores broader concerns about the politicization of law enforcement institutions and the potential erosion of institutional autonomy. As the court weighs the merits of the petition, the implications for PID’s future, and the integrity of its investigative capabilities, remain uncertain.