Netanyahu Trial: Defense Claims Key Information Was Withheld

During a hearing in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial, defense lawyer Amit Haddad argued that crucial information casting doubt on state witness Shlomo Filber's testimony was deliberately withheld from the former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit before the indictment was approved. Haddad asserted that this information, which highlighted inconsistencies in Filber's account of a supposed "instruction meeting" with Netanyahu, was also hidden from the defense. He contended that this constitutes a procedural flaw that could support a "defense from justice" claim, potentially leading to the dismissal of charges.

Haddad focused on evidence allegedly in police possession at the time, pointing to significant discrepancies in Filber's narrative regarding the meeting, a central element in the "Case 4000" prosecution. He stated that multiple witnesses had identified flaws and contradictions in Filber's version, yet Mandelblit, the sole authority to approve the indictment, was not presented with this data. "This data is critical, it was not brought to the attention of the Attorney General. It was hidden from him, it is critical to the core of the matter, it was hidden from him, and also from the defense," Haddad declared.

The defense team seeks to expand their questioning of Mandelblit, who was called to testify by their side, beyond a technical review of his approvals for investigations. Haddad argued that to substantiate the claim of withheld material, Mandelblit must be confronted with relevant documents to clarify precisely what information he received in real-time. The prosecution, represented by attorney Yudit Tirosh, vehemently denied Haddad's claims, stating, "This is not true."

The judges pressed Haddad to specify which administrative decision he believed was flawed due to incomplete information and how his requested factual inquiry would serve the defense's legal grounds. The core issue remains whether Mandelblit had a complete factual basis when formulating the indictment and if the court will permit the defense to question him on data they claim was withheld.

Haddad also raised concerns regarding the handling of other cases, including "Case 3000" (the submarine affair), where he questioned Mandelblit about attempts to recruit lawyer David Shimron as a state witness against Netanyahu, noting Netanyahu was not even a suspect in that case. Mandelblit stated he did not authorize such an attempt or an investigation into Netanyahu for Case 3000. Furthermore, Haddad presented evidence concerning the recruitment of Ari Harow as a state witness, suggesting investigators sought broad incriminating information on Netanyahu beyond approved lines of inquiry, a point Mandelblit partially conceded regarding potential questions in "Case 1000" during plea bargain negotiations.