The Ministerial Committee for Legislative Affairs approved on Sunday a bill to split the powers of the Attorney General, advancing a proposal by MK Michel Buskila (New Hope) based on an earlier plan formulated by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar during his tenure as Justice Minister.
The committee, chaired by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, agreed to advance the proposals to a preliminary reading in the Knesset. Levin emphasized that this move is “subject to a long list of amendments,” including clear definitions of the respective powers of the Attorney General and a newly proposed Prosecutor General, the procedures for their appointments, and safeguards to ensure the law does not lead to the creation of a parallel body that could engage in selective enforcement.
The bill aims to address the concentration of authority and the inherent conflict of interest in the current system, where the Attorney General serves both as a legal adviser to the government and as the official responsible for criminal investigations and prosecutions against the same government. According to the bill’s explanatory notes, this dual role creates ongoing tension between the Attorney General and government ministers.
The committee’s decision to approve the proposal came despite strong opposition from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who warned that the initiative—and its timing—raise serious concerns about attempts to influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ongoing criminal trial and other active legal proceedings.
In a letter sent Sunday to Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon urged the government to halt the legislative process. He argued that “the proposals should be opposed and not advanced,” citing both procedural and substantive flaws. According to Limon, the reforms amount to a fundamental change to Israel’s system of government and are being pursued hastily, “without preparatory groundwork, and without consulting the relevant professional bodies.” He also warned of a “serious concern” that the reforms are motivated by “significant personal interests,” directly tied to ongoing investigations, legal proceedings, and the identity of the current Attorney General.
However, despite Limon’s claims of fundamental changes to the legal system, the truth is that the AG’s role is hardly anchored in law; instead, it is the result of decades of symbiotic power-grabbing by the President of the High Court of Justice, Aharon Barak, who served as the AG under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, and a succession of AG’s who, each in his or her turn, usurped more and more power over Israel’s governments.
UNELECTED OFFICIAL, UNMATCHED CONCENTRATION OF POWER
In Israel, the Attorney General holds four central responsibilities: serving as the head of the public prosecution system; representing the state in all legal proceedings; acting as the government’s chief legal adviser; and safeguarding the public interest in legal matters.
In a December 2024 column in Maariv, former Justice Minister Haim Ramon argued that the absence of a division of the Attorney General’s role creates an inherent conflict of interest. “Consider the fact,” he wrote, “that the accused—Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—meets daily, often in private, with his accuser—the Attorney General. Does that make any sense?”
He was referring to the criminal indictments against the PM which were launched by his then legal advisor, Avichai Mandelblit, in his capacity as head of the state’s prosecution.
Ramon further contended that from a democratic standpoint, the concentration of so much authority in the hands of a single unelected official is deeply problematic. “There is no other democratic country in the world where one official holds such sweeping powers—not even in India, Bangladesh, or Honduras,” he noted, criticizing what he described as the growing dominance of legal elites over democratic governance.
REFORM THE DAMNED THING
Under the proposed legislation, decisions regarding the investigation and prosecution of elected officials––including ministers and Knesset members––would be transferred to a new panel. The panel would comprise a retired Supreme Court judge appointed by the Chief Justice, a former Attorney General appointed by the Justice Minister, and a private defense attorney appointed by the National Public Defender. The bill’s sponsors say this structure would provide a counterbalance to the prosecution-oriented perspective of the State Attorney’s Office.
Deputy Attorney General Gil Limon defended the current structure of the Attorney General’s powers, arguing that they are not a threat to democracy but a vital safeguard of it. “The dual responsibilities of the Attorney General—overseeing public prosecutions and providing legal counsel to the executive—are designed to enable her to effectively uphold the rule of law,” he wrote. “This unique combination serves as an important guarantee for democratic governance.”
Limon also warned that the current proposals, particularly in the context in which they are being introduced, are part of a broader legal overhaul that aims to “weaken the safeguards protecting democratic principles, undermine the rule of law, and remove legal constraints on government power.”
You’ll notice that the honorable Deputy AG considers a reform after 30 years of Judicial power-grabbing to be a bad thing.
