Mandelblit insists he approved Netanyahu indictment as defense challenges signature

Netanyahu's defense challenged the signature on his indictment, arguing it was copied from an earlier document, while Mandelblit insisted he had authorized the charges.

Former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit maintained Tuesday that he had authorized the indictment against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as defense lawyer Amit Hadad challenged whether he had personally signed the version eventually filed with the Jerusalem District Court.

Hadad argued that Mandelblit’s signature had been copied from an earlier document submitted to the Knesset speaker, which the defense described as a draft. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh rejected that description, saying the earlier document was the indictment itself and that transferring a signature between documents was standard practice.

“Clearly, the indictment was filed with my approval,” Mandelblit said.

The exchange formed part of the defense’s broader challenge to the approvals behind Netanyahu’s prosecution. Mandelblit, who authorized the investigations and later decided to bring charges, was called as a defense witness to address what he approved and whether investigators remained within those limits.

Under Basic Law: The Government, opening a criminal investigation into a sitting prime minister requires the attorney-general’s consent, and an indictment against the prime minister must be filed by the attorney-general in the Jerusalem District Court. The dispute over the signature concerns how Mandelblit’s approval was recorded; he continued to insist that the decision to prosecute was his.

Netanyahu's lawyer challenges Mandelblit over alleged copied signature

Hadad presented the signatures side by side, pointing to identical features, including a smudge in one of the letters. He argued that Mandelblit had signed the earlier document, not the indictment later filed in court.

Mandelblit acknowledged that the signatures looked alike but repeatedly said he remembered signing the indictment. He also challenged Hadad’s description of the earlier document, saying he would not have signed a draft.

Tirosh said the document sent to the Knesset speaker was the indictment Mandelblit had signed, with a witness list added afterward at the Knesset’s request. She accused Hadad of misleading the witness by presenting the document as a draft and said the court would decide the legal arguments.

Mandelblit explained that submitting the indictment to the Knesset speaker was part of the process allowing Netanyahu to seek parliamentary immunity.

Earlier in the hearing, Hadad requested time to study additional materials concerning the investigation approvals, which he said prosecutors had sent at 10 p.m. Monday. Prosecutor Alon Gildin agreed that allowing the defense time to prepare made sense. A closed-door discussion followed before Mandelblit’s testimony began.

Hadad said he intended to argue that the handling of the case justified canceling the indictment on grounds of unfairness.

Judges limit Mandelblit's testimony in Netanyahu corruption trial

Last Wednesday, the judges ruled 2-1 against expanding Mandelblit’s questioning beyond the investigation approvals. Judge Moshe Bar-Am dissented, expressing concern that limiting the testimony could leave gaps in the evidence relevant to the defense’s allegations of investigative misconduct. Those allegations can still be pursued through other witnesses and evidence. 

Tuesday’s dispute followed separate questioning Monday about Mandelblit’s signature on the amended indictment. He maintained that he had approved that version, while saying he did not remember whether he had physically signed it.

Defense questions scope of Mandelblit's authorization in Case 2000

Monday’s hearing also addressed whether police questioning about Netanyahu’s wider relationship with Israel Hayom exceeded the authorization Mandelblit had given in Case 2000. That case concerns recorded discussions with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon Mozes about favorable coverage in exchange for steps to curb the rival newspaper.

Netanyahu faces fraud and breach-of-trust charges in all three cases, as well as bribery in Case 4000, which concerns alleged regulatory benefits for Bezeq in exchange for intervention in Walla’s coverage. He denies wrongdoing. 

Hadad had said he expected to finish questioning Mandelblit on Tuesday. Mozes’s lawyer is also expected to question him, followed by prosecutors, whose questioning the court has limited to re-examination rather than full cross-examination.