High-profile case10/11/2026

Mandelblit: Some Investigative Measures Were Carried Out Without My Approval

Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified as a defense witness in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trial before the Jerusalem District Court. He said that several investigative measures, including significant ones, were carried out without his approval, but the prosecution maintains that the opening of the investigations received verbal approval.

Key facts

•Court: Jerusalem District Court
•Cases: 1000, 2000 and 4000
•The indictment was filed in January 2020
•No written approval was granted to open the investigation
•The source did not state the case number or the hearing date

The Dispute Over Approval to Open the Investigation

Netanyahu’s defense claims that measures in Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000 began before approval was obtained from the attorney general, as required by law. According to the source, no written approval was granted. The prosecution relies on an internal memorandum by Mandelblit and claims that he verbally approved the start of the preliminary inquiries, and that the law does not specifically require approval to be given in writing.

What Mandelblit Recounted

Mandelblit explained that when suspicion arose of a new type of offense, investigators were required to approach him again to obtain his approval. He said that he wanted to personally oversee the principal investigative measures, although the law did not require every step to be coordinated with him. He confirmed that certain measures were carried out without his approval, but stressed that he did not manage the investigative team.

The Wiretap and the Investigative Maneuver Against Nir Hefetz

Mandelblit said that he demanded an end to the wiretapping of Natan Eshel, which was carried out without his approval, if no personal connection between him and the suspected offenses was found. He also described the investigative maneuver and pressure applied to Netanyahu’s former spokesperson, Nir Hefetz, as unacceptable, and said that he had not known about them in advance. The defense claims that this maneuver influenced Hefetz’s decision to sign a state’s witness agreement.

The Matter Has Not Yet Been Decided on Its Merits

Mandelblit confirmed that he views each of the three cases as providing an independent basis for filing an indictment. The indictment in the three cases was filed in January 2020. The material presented describes the continuation of the witness’s examination and does not report a new court ruling on the defense’s claims; Netanyahu denies the charges, has not been convicted, and enjoys the presumption of innocence.

What this means for you

The testimony concerns the procedures for opening an investigation against a sitting prime minister and the limits of the attorney general’s oversight. For the ordinary person, this shows that the court may separately examine not only the evidence, but also whether the mandatory procedures for obtaining it were followed. However, the source does not indicate whether the court ruled that any measures were unlawful, or whether the irregularities revealed will affect the admissibility of the evidence or the outcome of the trial.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings