Judges overseeing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial are considering holding a discussion with Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara following questions raised during former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit’s testimony concerning the authorization and conduct of the investigations.
The possibility was raised during a hearing at the Jerusalem District Court on Thursday, after defense attorneys requested that Baharav-Miara appear before the court.
Attorneys Amit Hadad, representing Netanyahu, and Jack Chen, representing former Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch, asked the judges to invite Baharav-Miara to address issues that emerged during Mandelblit’s testimony. Judge Oded Shaham responded that the judicial panel had already considered taking such a step independently, before the defense formally raised the proposal.
“I’m not sure a request is necessary. We thought we should do it ourselves,” Shaham said, indicating that the judges had previously discussed the possibility of direct communication with the attorney-general. His remarks did not constitute a ruling on the defense’s request, and the court has not issued a formal decision requiring Baharav-Miara to attend.
Prosecutors responded that they act on behalf of the attorney-general and regularly convey developments in the proceedings, including matters raised by the judges, to the relevant authorities. “Both the course of the proceedings here and the matters the court refers to us are conveyed to the relevant officials,” prosecution representatives told the court.
The prosecution nevertheless said it would consider the judges’ remarks and return with a position on the proposed discussion. No final response has yet been presented, leaving open whether Baharav-Miara will be asked to participate in a future hearing.
Judges considered meeting with attorney-general before defense request
During Thursday’s hearing, Chen suggested that Baharav-Miara attend a closed-door discussion to address what he described as irregularities that had emerged during the trial. Shaham clarified that the judges had considered arranging such a discussion even before the defense raised the issue.
The proposed meeting would not amount to summoning Baharav-Miara as a witness in the criminal proceedings. She was not attorney-general when the investigations were conducted, did not direct or supervise them, and was not responsible for filing the indictment against Netanyahu.
Those decisions were made during Mandelblit’s tenure as attorney-general. Mandelblit authorized the investigations and subsequently approved the indictment against Netanyahu, making his testimony particularly relevant to the defense’s challenges concerning the legal authorization of investigative steps.
Mandelblit has appeared for nine days of testimony in recent weeks and is expected to return for a limited number of additional hearings. His questioning has focused on whether investigators received the necessary authorization to pursue specific lines of inquiry and whether their actions remained within the scope of the approvals he granted.
Mandelblit testimony raises questions over Netanyahu investigation approvals
The proposed discussion comes two days after Mandelblit was questioned on Tuesday, November 3, about his approval of the indictment and the documentation supporting investigative decisions.
During that hearing, Hadad challenged whether Mandelblit had personally signed the version of the indictment ultimately filed with the court. Mandelblit maintained that the indictment had been submitted with his authorization, while prosecutors rejected the defense’s characterization of an earlier version as merely a draft.
The judges also instructed prosecutors to provide complete records of meetings in which Mandelblit authorized the investigations, potentially allowing the court to determine whether additional documentation should be disclosed to the defense.
The controversy extends beyond the indictment itself. Throughout his testimony, Mandelblit has faced questions about the timing and scope of investigative approvals, including whether police pursued certain investigative actions without obtaining his specific authorization.
Under Israel’s Basic Law: The Government, a criminal investigation into a sitting prime minister requires the attorney-general’s consent. The defense has sought to establish whether that requirement was satisfied for the investigative measures taken in Netanyahu’s cases, while the prosecution has disputed claims that the investigations were improperly authorized.
Case 4000 bribery charge remains a central issue in Netanyahu trial
Another issue forming the backdrop to the proposed discussion is the future of the bribery charge in Case 4000, also known as the Bezeq-Walla affair.
The judges previously recommended that prosecutors consider withdrawing the bribery charge after expressing concerns about the evidentiary basis for securing a conviction. The prosecution declined to withdraw the charge, which remains part of the indictment.
Case 4000 centers on allegations that Netanyahu advanced regulatory decisions benefiting telecommunications company Bezeq and its then-controlling shareholder, Elovitch, in exchange for favorable coverage on the Walla news website, which Elovitch also controlled.
Netanyahu and the Elovitches deny wrongdoing. Netanyahu faces bribery, fraud, and breach-of-trust charges in Case 4000, as well as fraud and breach-of-trust charges in Cases 1000 and 2000.
It remains possible that the judges would seek Baharav-Miara’s position on the prosecution’s decision to maintain the bribery charge. However, the court has not indicated that this is the purpose of the proposed discussion, and no direct connection between the two matters has been established.
Another possibility is that the panel wishes to address broader issues concerning the management of the proceedings directly with the attorney-general, in her capacity as the official responsible for the state prosecution, rather than solely through the prosecutors appearing in court.
For now, the court has made no formal decision on Baharav-Miara’s participation, and prosecutors have yet to submit their final position on the proposed discussion.
