Ex-AG Mandelblit Testifies for Netanyahu Defense in Corruption Trial

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit began testifying on Monday as a defense witness in the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a rare occurrence where the former head of the prosecution is called to testify in a case he handled, specifically for the defense.

Netanyahu's defense team, led by attorney Amit Haddad, intends to argue that Mandelblit did not properly approve the investigation into Netanyahu, as required by law, and therefore the indictment should be dismissed. The prosecution rejects this claim entirely. The defense's strategy hinges on a "defense from justice" argument, asserting the investigation's illegality. Lawyers for co-defendants Shaul and Iris Elovitch have already filed a similar motion, but the court has yet to rule on it.

The defense may also claim Mandelblit faced pressure from then-State Attorney Shai Nitzan regarding the Harpaz affair. In that case, Mandelblit, then Military Advocate General, sought time to consider ordering the then-IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi to file a complaint against a document allegedly intended to promote Yoav Gallant's candidacy for chief of staff.

A central issue in the trial is the "legal counsel's approvals." Even the prosecution acknowledges that Mandelblit did not issue a clear, formal approval to open investigations against Netanyahu. Instead, the prosecution claims these approvals are evident in the minutes of discussions held in his office. Mandelblit previously informed the court in writing that he had provided all necessary approvals, though he did not submit an affidavit.

Both sides submitted hundreds of pages of documents, signaling a contentious debate. The defense requested all materials related to the "legal counsel's approvals," including protocols and correspondence. The prosecution objected, stating the material was not in their possession, was extensive, and that internal documents not considered part of the investigation file are not subject to disclosure. The prosecution also stated that documentation of Mandelblit's consent to open investigations in all three cases, including specific details about Case 1000, had already been provided.

Mandelblit's testimony date also sparked controversy. The defense requested seven sessions, potentially extending their case for another year or two. Mandelblit sought to postpone his testimony to November or December, citing his duties as dean at Ramat Gan College, which was opening its doors. He also stated the date was set during the holidays and not coordinated with him. The court denied his request, though the defense noted Mandelblit indicated he could not attend all five sessions scheduled for the following week.