The prosecution's announcement in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trial that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara is not expected to accept the judges' suggestion that she appear in court has drawn criticism.
In an interview with Arutz Sheva, attorney Eyal Besserglick sharply criticized the conduct of the attorney general and the prosecution, arguing that some within the system are not interested in bringing the legal proceedings to a close.
Besserglick began by clarifying that the judges had not ordered the attorney general to appear, but had raised the possibility following remarks by Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Hadad. According to Besserglick, when Hadad said it might be necessary to summon Baharav-Miara, the judges replied that he was pushing at an open door and that they, too, were considering inviting her to the courtroom.
Besserglick stressed that there is a significant difference between a suggestion by the court and a binding judicial order. If the judges decide to order the attorney general to appear, she will be required to attend and answer their questions.
Nevertheless, he believes the decision not to accept the judges' suggestion itself raises questions about the prosecution's conduct. He said, "The very fact that she dares to disregard the judges shows that someone has an interest in dragging this case out".
In this context, Besserglick pointed to what he described as difficulties that have emerged during Netanyahu's trial. He cited the judges' assessment of the difficulty of proving the bribery charge in Case 4000, alongside allegations that the investigations were opened without the necessary approvals and that witnesses were questioned improperly.
According to Besserglick, the presiding judge has also addressed irregularities that emerged during the trial. However, he added that, based on his 26 years of professional experience appearing in court, some of the practices exposed in Netanyahu's trial are not substantially different from those he encounters in other cases.
He argued that the judges had tried to give the parties an opportunity to find a way to bring the proceedings to an end. He said, "The judges gave the prosecution and the defense a chance to climb down and move toward some form of negotiation, including under the auspices of the judges, who can express their views following Mandelblit's testimony, and the attorney general is not respecting them".
Later in the interview, Besserglick also addressed Netanyahu's pardon request and efforts to advance mediation in the criminal case. He described it as "half a pardon request", because it includes neither an admission of wrongdoing nor an expression of remorse, but instead rests on the argument that the request is being submitted in the country's best interests.
Besserglick also criticized the president's handling of the possibility of advancing mediation. He claimed that while dialogue with prosecutors and the attorney general is generally possible, in this case they had been unwilling to participate in the usual criminal mediation process.
He said, "Usually, the door of the prosecution and the attorney general is open, but when mediation was proposed in this case, their door was not open. They refused mediation and were willing to take part only under the auspices of the president, even though he is not a criminal mediator. This is absurd".
He said this conduct reinforced his sense that considerations beyond purely legal ones were influencing the continued handling of the case. He said, "From this, we understand that this is a semi-political affair. These people are unwilling to climb down from the high horse they have mounted-the people who filed the indictment and those who replaced them, Amit Aisman and the attorney general. They are unwilling to make the decision of a responsible adult who understands that he has lost the case on most fronts".
Despite the prosecution's announcement, Besserglick stressed that the possibility of the attorney general appearing in court remains on the table. He said the judges could later decide to turn their suggestion into a binding summons, in which case Baharav-Miara would be required to appear.
He explained that the purpose of such an appearance would not be to question the attorney general about the approvals granted to open the investigations during Avichai Mandelblit's tenure, but to allow her to hear the judges' position directly and present her own position to them.
Besserglick said, "The intention was not to question her on the witness stand about the approvals Mandelblit gave, but rather because they thought prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh was not conveying their messages to her properly. The judges wanted the attorney general both to listen and to be heard".
He concluded with criticism of the continued handling of the matter, "It is very regrettable that we all find ourselves held hostage to this affair, which someone is taking in unrelated directions".