The trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to raise questions about the conduct of the investigations that led to the indictments. In an interview with Arutz Sheva, MK Moshe Saada revealed what he described as a newly learned detail concerning the review of the investigative tactics used on Nir Hefetz, arguing that it illustrates the need to separate the Police Internal Investigations Department (Mahash) from the State Attorney's Office.
Saada revisited the period when he served as deputy head of the Police Internal Investigations Department and discussed the investigative tactic used on Hefetz as part of efforts to persuade him to sign a state's witness agreement. According to Saada, Superintendent Tzachi Havkin, who headed a police investigative team, sought at the time to provide Internal Affairs with detailed information about the tactic and how it had been carried out.
Saada said Havkin was prepared to disclose everything but requested that his name and position remain confidential. According to Saada, Havkin feared that if it became known that a police officer had provided information against senior police and prosecution officials, his professional future could be harmed.
The proposed arrangement was that Havkin would provide all the information to Saada, but that any future use of it would attribute the information to a confidential source known only to the deputy head of Internal Affairs.
Saada said he brought the request to then-head of Internal Affairs Keren Bar Menachem, but claimed that she refused to allow testimony under conditions of confidentiality and insisted that if Havkin testified, he would have to do so openly.
According to Saada, this was an unusual decision. In cases of this kind, he argued, the investigative interest is to obtain the information, examine it, and then conduct additional investigative steps, including comparing documents and reviewing relevant materials and recordings. In his view, the refusal to receive the information under Havkin's requested conditions demonstrated a lack of willingness to uncover findings that might have emerged.
As a result, Saada and Dubi Shertzer, who served as head of Internal Affairs' exposure unit, filed a complaint against Bar Menachem with the Public Complaints Commissioner against State Representatives in the Courts, retired Judge David Rozen. They alleged that the head of Internal Affairs had prevented them from receiving testimony from a senior police officer who wished to provide information.
Saada said that because of the seriousness of the allegations, Rozen asked whether he would be willing to undergo a polygraph examination. According to Saada, both he and Shertzer submitted written statements agreeing to be tested at any time. Bar Menachem, he said, denied the allegations and refused to undergo a polygraph examination.
According to Saada, Rozen concluded his review by stating that a "cloud" remained hanging over the prosecution and forwarded his report for examination by the prosecution. However, Saada claims the matter was never thoroughly investigated.
Havkin later testified in court. Saada said that during his testimony, Havkin presented a full account of the conduct of the police and prosecution regarding the investigative tactic. Among other things, Saada claimed Havkin linked prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh to the operation carried out against Hefetz.
Saada also referred to remarks previously made by former Deputy State Attorney Raz Nizri, who said that during a meeting discussing the investigative tactic, he expressed shock over the measure. According to Saada, despite those objections, the tactic was not halted.
Saada said he recently learned an additional detail from a source familiar with the matter. According to him, after that meeting it was decided to review the incident-but the person assigned to conduct the review was prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh herself.
"But who did they assign to investigate it? Yehudit Tirosh," Saada said. "In other words, the very same Yehudit Tirosh who was deeply involved in this investigative tactic was the one assigned to review it, and she concluded that she had acted properly. That's how the system works. It was the same in the Military Advocate General affair."
Saada is now calling for a comprehensive investigation into the matter.
"The entire extortion affair and the Tzachi Havkin affair require an in-depth investigation. There is no statute of limitations on this," he said. According to Saada, the relevant officials knew in real time about the conduct surrounding Hefetz, but the investigation was never fully pursued.
Saada linked the issue to legislation he promoted to separate Internal Affairs from the State Attorney's Office. According to him, the previous structure created institutional dependence that prevented Internal Affairs from independently investigating cases involving senior law enforcement officials.
"The role of the head of Internal Affairs is to investigate cases like these," Saada said. "Until now, every investigation had to receive the approval of the State Attorney. Now we have separated Internal Affairs from the prosecution. Internal Affairs now has the authority to open investigations independently."
According to Saada, the change will allow the head of Internal Affairs to summon those involved, collect testimony, conduct independent investigations, and, where warranted, bring indictments.
Saada said the legislation faced significant opposition and noted that candidates have already applied to become the next head of Internal Affairs. He attributed the sharp criticism directed at him-including articles published in Haaretz-to fears over Internal Affairs's new independence and the possibility that investigations previously considered impossible may now be opened.
He also addressed criticism from journalists, including Amnon Abramovich, claiming it reflects an effort to protect the existing system.
"They are afraid the fortress will fall and the queen will collapse," Saada concluded. "That is what they are trying to prevent."