JERUSALEM (VINnews) — Former Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s testimony in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial has exposed significant irregularities in the investigations, raising questions about police conduct, prosecutorial oversight and the legal authorization of key investigative actions.

During three days of testimony, culminating on Tuesday, October 20, Mandelblit acknowledged that police investigators had taken certain significant steps without his knowledge or approval, that improper interrogation tactics had been employed against a key state witness, and that he could not recall important details concerning the authorization of the bribery investigation against Netanyahu.

The admissions have provided Netanyahu’s defense team with additional grounds to challenge the prosecution’s handling of the cases, although they do not automatically invalidate the indictments.

One of the central issues concerns the legal requirement that investigations against a sitting prime minister receive the attorney general’s approval. Netanyahu’s attorney, Amit Hadad, sought to demonstrate that police investigators had exceeded the scope of Mandelblit’s authorizations and conducted investigative activities without the required permission. Mandelblit acknowledged that certain actions had been undertaken without his knowledge, including surveillance involving Netanyahu’s former aide Natan Eshel, which he ordered discontinued after learning about it.

His testimony also appeared to contradict earlier statements by senior police investigator Koresh Barnur suggesting that all investigative actions had received the attorney general’s approval. Mandelblit maintained, however, that the law required his approval for opening investigations, not for every individual investigative step. The distinction could prove important in determining whether investigators acted outside their legal authority and whether any resulting evidence should be affected.

Another significant admission concerned the interrogation of Nir Hefetz, Netanyahu’s former media adviser and a central prosecution witness in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla affair. Investigators arranged an encounter involving a woman personally connected to Hefetz, apparently intending to exploit sensitive information about his private life as psychological pressure. Mandelblit acknowledged that he had not known about the tactic beforehand and described it as improper. He also said he had been unaware that senior prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh had attended a meeting at which the tactic was discussed.

The testimony strengthens the defense’s argument that questionable interrogation methods may have influenced Hefetz’s decision to cooperate with investigators. However, establishing misconduct would not necessarily invalidate his testimony. The defense would still need to demonstrate its relevance to the reliability of his evidence.

Mandelblit also faced difficult questions about the authorization of Case 4000, the most serious of the three cases because it includes a bribery charge. He acknowledged that he could not remember whether Netanyahu had been explicitly cautioned about bribery when questioned by investigators. Mandelblit described the wording of the investigative authorization as broad and somewhat ambiguous, prompting questions from Judge Moshe Bar-Am about whether such ambiguity was appropriate in an investigation involving a sitting prime minister.

Hadad argued that the investigation had expanded beyond its original authorization. The prosecution maintains that the investigations were properly approved and that gaps in Mandelblit’s recollection do not establish illegality.

Tuesday’s hearing also featured an attempt by the defense to examine whether political considerations influenced the decision to prosecute Netanyahu. Hadad questioned Mandelblit about alleged remarks to Tirosh in 2019 expressing concern that Netanyahu could transform Israel into a political system resembling Hungary or Poland. The defense suggested that the remarks, if established, could indicate political motivations behind the prosecution.

Prosecutors objected to the questioning, but Judge Bar-Am indicated that personal hostility toward a defendant could be relevant if it influenced a decision to indict. The judges requested a factual foundation for the allegations before allowing the issue to proceed further. The alleged remarks have not yet been established as fact.

Mandelblit’s testimony also revealed that he initially had serious reservations about pursuing Case 2000, involving recorded conversations between Netanyahu and newspaper publisher Arnon Mozes. Although the conversations raised suspicions of bribery, Mandelblit acknowledged that Netanyahu’s decision to record them complicated the question of criminal intent.

Taken together, the testimony has strengthened the defense’s claims of investigative irregularities, inadequate supervision and potentially improper pressure on witnesses. Nevertheless, Israeli courts have previously rejected attempts to dismiss the indictments over authorization deficiencies, and procedural misconduct does not automatically require the exclusion of evidence or dismissal of charges.

The central question now is whether Mandelblit’s admissions merely expose shortcomings in the investigation or establish legal defects serious enough to undermine the prosecution’s case.