Jerusalem Court Narrows Scope of Mandelblit Testimony in Netanyahu Trial

The Jerusalem District Court ruled by a majority on Wednesday to limit how far defense lawyers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial can question former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit. The decision came after Judge Moshe Bar-Am openly asked how the court could set aside Mandelblit's own account of unlawful investigative actions.

"How can we ignore the fact that the attorney-general comes here and testifies about unlawful actions?" Bar-Am asked prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh. He warned that blocking further questions could leave a gap in the factual record, and said the door had already been opened by Mandelblit's testimony, which in his view raised matters needing deeper examination.

The panel, made up of presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Bar-Am and Judge Oded Shaham, nonetheless voted 2-1 to confine the questioning to the issue for which Mandelblit was allowed to testify: the approvals he gave for investigations into Netanyahu. Netanyahu's lawyer Amit Hadad then asked for an adjournment to adjust his planned questions. The prosecution did not object, and the session ended after roughly two hours.

Mandelblit was called by the defense to address whether police had proper authorization and whether their inquiries went beyond what he approved. Under Basic Law: The Government, the attorney-general must consent before a criminal investigation into a sitting prime minister can begin.

In his testimony so far, Mandelblit has said he authorized the investigations but acknowledged that some significant steps were taken without his approval. He separated permission to investigate certain subjects from oversight of every police action, saying investigators were expected to consult him on major developments. He said he ordered police to halt wiretapping of Netanyahu confidant Natan Eshel once he learned of it, and he called improper a tactic used on Nir Hefetz, Netanyahu's former media adviser who became a state witness, which he said he had not known about in advance. On Monday he also conceded that questioning in Case 1000 went beyond the warning given to Netanyahu, and that the warning in Case 2000 did not match the allegations under investigation.

Mandelblit has still defended the decision to indict. He rejected claims that pressure shaped his choices, said he would be surprised if prosecutors deliberately hid information from him, disputed the defense claim that the bribery charge in Case 4000 had collapsed, and argued that investigative irregularities do not automatically require evidence to be excluded.

Wednesday's dispute centered on the defense's bid to question him more broadly about police and prosecution conduct between his authorization of the investigations and his decision to file charges. Hadad argued that material information was withheld from Mandelblit, undermining that decision. Jacques Chen, who represents Shaul Elovitch and his wife Iris, said investigative failures should have been part of Mandelblit's judgment on whether prosecution served the public interest. Tirosh objected to widening the testimony into internal prosecution decision-making, saying alleged gaps should be raised with investigators. Friedman-Feldman noted that Mandelblit had said he did not personally review some material, including transcripts.

His appearance came during the final weeks of the election campaign. The defense asked on September 17 for seven hearing dates between October 11 and October 22, the last five days before the October 27 election, and his testimony began on October 11. The court rejected his request to delay until November or December because of his duties as law faculty dean at the Academic College of Ramat Gan. His testimony ran past the planned dates, and Wednesday's hearing took place the day after the vote.

The trial began in May 2020 and covers three cases. Case 1000 concerns expensive gifts allegedly received from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer, and actions allegedly taken to benefit Milchan. Case 2000 involves talks with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes about favorable coverage in return for steps against the rival Israel Hayom. Case 4000 alleges Netanyahu advanced regulatory measures favoring Bezeq's then-controlling shareholder, Elovitch, in exchange for intervention in coverage by Walla. Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three, and bribery in Case 4000. He denies wrongdoing.

The case remains in the defense stage. Netanyahu finished his own testimony in June after 98 hearings, and the court is hearing other defense witnesses. Hearings moved to a five-day weekly schedule this month to speed up the remaining evidence, and the defense case and closing arguments must still be completed before a verdict.