Netanyahu Trial: Mandelblit Reveals Gaps in Oversight of Police Investigations

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified on Sunday in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was present in the courtroom. Mandelblit appeared at the request of Netanyahu's defense team, which responded to his testimony by declaring, “The truth is coming to light.”

Mandelblit Reveals Concerns Over Investigative Methods

During his testimony, Mandelblit addressed the authorizations granted for investigative activities in the corruption cases against Netanyahu, commonly known as the “Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000.”

He revealed that he had ordered the cancellation of a planned wiretap targeting Nathan Eshel after becoming concerned that the investigation might intrude into political matters.

Mandelblit also addressed an investigative tactic used against a woman close to state witness Nir Hefetz, making it clear that he considered the operation improper.

“It was something that greatly troubled me. It was improper and wrong,” he said.

According to Mandelblit, he considered referring the matter to the Police Internal Investigations Department but ultimately decided to limit his response to a review of documents, fearing that a broader investigation could interfere with the criminal proceedings against Netanyahu.

“At the very least, disciplinary action should have been taken,” he added.

Information Withheld From the Attorney General

According to a report by Walla, Mandelblit subsequently confirmed that he had been unaware that the investigative tactic involving Hefetz's associate had been discussed at a meeting attended by representatives of the State Attorney's Office.

When asked whether the prosecution team should have informed him of the discussion, he answered affirmatively.

He also confirmed that he had not been told that investigator Eli Asayag had authorized the operation and agreed that this information should have been brought to his attention.

Mandelblit was further asked whether he had known about the use of spyware during the investigations. He said he had not.

Similarly, when questioned about whether he had been involved in determining the pressure exerted on suspects to persuade them to become state witnesses, he denied any involvement.

Significant Investigative Actions Carried Out Without Approval

During questioning by Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Hadad, Mandelblit was asked about investigative actions conducted without his authorization.

The former attorney general explained that he had not been required to approve every investigative step. However, he acknowledged that some significant actions had been carried out without his approval.

When asked whether there had been instances in which serious investigative measures were taken without his authorization, he answered yes.

The Need for Special Oversight in a Prime Minister's Investigation

Later in his testimony, Mandelblit explained his approach to overseeing criminal investigations involving a sitting prime minister.

Although the law did not require him to approve every investigative action, he said he had specifically requested that major steps be presented to him for authorization because of the sensitivity of the cases.

“This was a significant case. I did not approve, nor did I require approval for, every action, and that is perfectly acceptable,” Mandelblit said.

“As attorney general, it is entirely appropriate for the police to conduct investigative activities. In this exceptional case, however, I wanted the main investigative actions to be presented to me and approved by me, even though the law did not require it, because the matter was extremely sensitive.”

Mandelblit explained that prosecutorial decisions must be guided by two primary considerations: the evidence and the public interest.

On the one hand, he said, when suspicions arise against a prime minister, authorities have a duty to investigate them rather than allow the allegations to remain unresolved. On the other, he emphasized that such investigations require particular caution to prevent disproportionate investigative measures.

The testimony comes amid an ongoing dispute between Netanyahu's defense and the prosecution over the legality and scope of the investigative authorizations. The defense argues that investigators exceeded the permissions granted by Mandelblit, while prosecutors maintain that the investigations were properly authorized.