Prosecution Says Netanyahu’s Refusal to Testify Helped Orich

The indictment against Jonathan Urich in the Bild affair: The Tel Aviv District Court is currently hearing the prosecution’s request to remove Jonathan Urich, the prime minister’s adviser, from the Prime Minister’s Office and to bar him from contacting witnesses, including the prime minister.

At the start of the hearing, Urich’s attorney, Amit Hadad, argued that for three and a half months no conditions were imposed preventing Urich from having contact with the prime minister, and that he continued speaking with him, being in the Prime Minister’s Office and leading the Likud campaign. He said he did not understand the urgency of the current request. “He is leading the campaign, he is in the PMO, he is speaking with people involved. At 10:30 last night they get a message asking for conditions. It was also leaked weeks earlier that there would be an indictment so then they would also ask for the conditions. And then in the morning we arrive with a different and strange request and a different and strange indictment and with witnesses who did not give a version in the police investigation” (Netanyahu, Ronen Bar and Herzi Halevi, Y.V.), Hadad said.

Prosecutor Adi Arad referred to Hadad’s representation and said she would approach the Israel Bar Association over a possible conflict of interest, because Hadad represents both Urich and Netanyahu, who was added as a prosecution witness against him: “We will say that attorney Amit Hadad represents the respondent and Prosecution Witness No. 80, the prime minister, in the thousand cases. We have not checked the ethical issue with the Bar Association, but we will approach the Bar Association with an inquiry on the matter.”

Later, Arad argued that there is a significant basis for obstruction in Urich’s case. In her words, “I refer to the facts in the indictment, according to which he destroyed evidence, formatted the phone, after Feldstein was arrested.” The prosecution representative also claimed that because of the close relationship between the prime minister and Urich, there is concern about coordinating versions. The prosecutor also said that “the prime minister’s refusal to testify in this case benefits Urich.” Adi Arad added that “there are documented requests to the prime minister to coordinate testimony regarding the case at any place and time he chooses, and the prime minister has declined to respond to the requests. This is relevant to the case regarding the prohibition on making contact. The prime minister is one of the prosecution witnesses in the case. His version, as given, focused mainly on Qatargate, but we found in it things that are also relevant to this case.”

During the hearing, Judge Ala’a Massarwa questioned the prosecution’s request to reinstate the removal conditions. “This is a bit strange. On 15.3.26, when there was still no indictment, you agreed that he would return to the Prime Minister’s Office. I assume there was concern about obstruction. If then, at the height of the critical moment, you agreed that he would return, why today are you asking to remove him?” he said.

After the prosecution representative replied that “today the respondent is facing a significant indictment,” the judge added: “Then there was concern about obstruction of the investigation and today about the trial. Then you agreed that he would return, I am exaggerating, to the lion’s den. And now you are asking to remove him? After all, the concern about obstruction of the investigation is much more critical, immediate and extreme than a general concern about influencing the trial.”

In response, prosecution representative Adi Arad explained that “we were forced to agree then out of necessity, because there was no basis to extend the conditions when there was no expectation of carrying out the next investigative action, taking the prime minister’s testimony, because of the war. There was an understanding on the state’s part that the conditions could not be extended again and again when the investigation could not continue and testimony could not be taken from the prime minister because of an objective obstacle. But even after that obstacle ended and the war ended, the prime minister did not come to testify.”