A Proposed Law to Restructure the Police Internal Affairs Bureau (Machash)

Photo: Yossi Zamir, Shatil-Stock

A bill proposing reforming the Police Internal Investigations Department (MACHASH) is being discussed by a joint Knesset committee of the National Security Committee and the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee. The original bill was introduced by MK Moshe Saada and sought to remove MACHASH from the State Attorney’s Office and place it under the authority of the Minister of Justice, who would also appoint the head of the committee; it would also grant MACHASH authority to investigate prosecutors from the State Attorney’s Office. 

During the committee’s discussions in preparation for the bill’s first reading, changes were made to the bill at the initiative of the Chair of the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman.

The revised text includes a series of amendments, including two issues that raise substantial constitutional concerns: 

• The new version still proposes removing MACHASH from the State Attorney’s Office and subordinating it directly to the Minister of Justice. It then adds that the head of MACHASH would be appointed by a committee composed of five members, three of whom would be appointed by the Director General of the Ministry of Justice and two attorneys appointed by the Minister of Justice and the Director General. This means that the appointment would be made by political figures rather than by a professional and independent committee. 

• Another significant change is the intention to sever MACHASH’s subordination to the Attorney General. The bill stipulates that MACHASH would have the authority to independently file indictments in the cases it handles. Although the proposal states that these powers are to be exercised “with due regard to the guidelines of the Attorney General and the State Attorney,” it does not establish that it would be legally subordinate to them. 

ACRI has opposed this bill throughout the legislative process. Attorneys Debbie Gild‑Hayo and Nitsan Ilani argued in appeals that while there is a need for various reforms within MACHASH and for strengthening public trust in it, the proposed wording suggests that the bill’s sole purpose is to increase political influence over MACHASH and to undermine the independence and autonomy of the law‑enforcement system. ACRI's main arguments include:

• Decisions on whether to open a criminal investigation, including investigations of police officers, must be made by a fully independent body free from any political influence, in order to prevent the investigative authority from being used either for persecution or to erode the rule of law. Police officers suspected of offenses are entitled to have the body investigating them be entirely detached from political influence and able to act solely in accordance with the law. 

• The politicization of MACHASH may lead to situations in which incidents of police violence against civilians, particularly those who criticize the authorities, are not investigated when the criticism does not align with the minister’s position. It may send a message to police officers that they are protected from accountability when they abuse and harass demonstrators associated with a particular side of the political spectrum. 

• Disconnecting the head of MACHASH from professional subordination to the Attorney General would mean that criminal law is applied differently to police officers. This would also increase distrust among police officers and the public toward the law‑enforcement system. Detaching MACHASH from the Attorney General could also undermine MACHASH’s ability to operate in a professional capacity and leave it as an isolated body within the broader law-enforcement system. 

• Political takeover of MACHASH constitutes an infringement on the core foundational principles of the democratic system and is unconstitutional. 

In our appeals, we argued that the proposal set out in the bill would not improve MACHASH’s functioning, and is instead likely to undermine its professionalism and public trust. The bill currently being advanced contradicts the recommendations of the professional committee, raising concerns that this bill is being promoted as part of a broader effort to gain political control over the justice system and law‑enforcement. 

ACRI's appeal, December 9, 2024 (Heb) 

ACRI's appeal, February 5, 2026 (Heb) 

The first appeal was written with the assistance of Sivan Tahel, Director of the Freedom of Protest and Expression Department.