Netanyahu Trial Reaches Critical Juncture; Attorney Questions AG's Obligation
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Attorney Sassi Gz stated that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara must appear in the Netanyahu trial following a court order, though she is not required to change the indictment. Gz explained that defying the explicit order would look bad, but appearing does not mean agreeing with the judges. Baharav-Miara can maintain the prosecution's stance and argue that indictment content is the prosecution's authority. She could theoretically appeal to the High Court of Justice.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Attorney Sassi Gz says Attorney General must appear in Netanyahu trial due to court order.
- Gz: Attorney General is not obligated to change indictment or agree with judges.
- Defying the court's explicit order would reflect poorly on the Attorney General.
- The Attorney General can maintain the prosecution's stance on the indictment.
- Appearing in court does not prevent the Attorney General from avoiding substantive discussion.
Attorney Sassi Gz stated that the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, must appear for a hearing in the Netanyahu trial following a court order, but is not obligated to alter the indictment or agree with the judges' position. Gz explained that while the court issued an explicit order this time, unlike a previous request, her refusal to appear would be viewed very negatively, as defying a court order is not something the Attorney General can decide on her own. He emphasized that appearing does not compel her to agree with the court's stance or engage in a substantive discussion on the judges' questions. She can present her position that the prosecution's stance remains unchanged and that the indictment's content is within the prosecution's authority.
Gz further clarified that the court can make decisions but cannot dictate the content of an indictment, as this authority rests solely with the prosecution. One option for Baharav-Miara is to attend the hearing and declare that the state does not intend to change its position, allowing the court to proceed with the trial and render a verdict. Even if she does not answer all questions substantively, it may not constitute a violation of her duty to appear, as she can state she appeared due to the order but the court can state its opinion in the verdict. Theoretically, Baharav-Miara could appeal to the High Court of Justice (Bagatz), though Gz is unsure if she will pursue this, noting that appeals on interim decisions in criminal proceedings are very limited.
Ultimately, Gz believes the Attorney General is not required to agree with the judges, retract the bribery charges, or engage in a substantive discussion of their views. However, as long as the court order stands, her obligation to appear before the court remains in effect.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Left 2Centre 9Right 4Haredi 3Other 2
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
