Netanyahu trial judges consider discussion with attorney-general over investigation questions

Judges hearing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial are considering a discussion with Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara after testimony raised questions about how the investigations were approved and conducted. The possibility was discussed at the Jerusalem District Court on Thursday, November 5, but the panel has not ordered her to attend.

Defense lawyers Amit Hadad, who represents Netanyahu, and Jack Chen, who represents former Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch, asked the court to invite Baharav-Miara to address matters arising from former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit's testimony. Chen proposed a closed-door discussion about what he described as irregularities revealed during the proceedings. Judge Oded Shaham said the panel had already considered the idea independently: "I'm not sure a request is necessary. We thought we should do it ourselves."

Prosecutors said they represent the attorney-general and routinely pass developments in the trial, including issues raised by the court, to the relevant officials. They nevertheless agreed to consider the judges' comments and provide their position on the suggested discussion. Their final response remains pending.

The proposal would not involve calling Baharav-Miara as a witness. She was not attorney-general during the investigations, did not oversee them and was not responsible for the indictment. Mandelblit authorized the investigations and later approved the charges. He has testified over nine days in recent weeks and is expected to attend a limited number of further hearings.

Much of Mandelblit's questioning has concerned whether investigators obtained approval for particular inquiries and acted within the authority he granted. During Tuesday's hearing on November 3, Hadad questioned whether Mandelblit had personally signed the indictment version filed in court. Mandelblit maintained that its submission had his authorization, while prosecutors disputed the defense's description of an earlier version as merely a draft.

The judges have also directed prosecutors to supply complete records of meetings at which Mandelblit approved the investigations. Those records could help the court assess whether more documentation should be released to the defense. Israel's Basic Law: The Government requires the attorney-general's consent for a criminal investigation into a serving prime minister. Defense lawyers have questioned whether that requirement was met for investigative measures in Netanyahu's cases, while prosecutors have contested allegations of improper authorization.

The discussion is being considered against the backdrop of a separate dispute over the bribery charge in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla affair. Judges previously urged prosecutors to consider dropping that charge because of concerns about the evidence supporting a conviction. Prosecutors declined, and the charge remains in the indictment.

Case 4000 involves allegations that Netanyahu promoted regulatory decisions benefiting Bezeq and Elovitch in return for favorable coverage from the Walla news website, which Elovitch also controlled. Netanyahu and the Elovitches deny wrongdoing. Netanyahu faces bribery, fraud and breach-of-trust charges in that case, alongside fraud and breach-of-trust charges in Cases 1000 and 2000.

The court has not linked the proposed discussion with Baharav-Miara to the decision to retain the bribery charge. A discussion could also concern the broader management of proceedings, given her responsibility for the state prosecution. Its purpose and whether she will participate remain unresolved.