Photo: Moshe Ben Simhon
In the Attorney General’s document, signed by him and attached to the notice, Mandelblit announces that he is the one who gave his personal consent to the prime minister’s investigations, and that he approved, agreed and accompanied the investigation and investigation into Netanyahu’s case. The ombudsman also specifies the dates on which he made decisions regarding the opening of investigations and subsequent investigations into the Prime Minister’s case, decisions that he made in an orderly and professional work procedure made with the enforcement authorities, and which was documented in real time.
Mandelblit added that not only did he give initial consent to open the investigations or investigations in the three investigation files, each at a time, as required by law, but he also gave approval at various stages to dozens of other investigative actions in the cases, even though the law requires consent to open an investigation only. The certificates are detailed in the document according to their dates and according to documentation written in “real time” in internal records of the Office of the Attorney General.
It is further clarified in his memorandum that according to the Basic Law of the Government, there is no obligation to give “written consent” of the ombudsman to open an investigation of a prime minister, and the law does not require consent to be given in a certain format. Such consent may be recorded only internally or otherwise. When the legislature wants to establish a more rigid “consent” requirement such as “written consent” it does so explicitly.
It is also emphasized that this requirement of consent determines a “process” and not a “substantive” characteristic and it seeks to serve a public interest in having a decision on senior officials be made by the head of the law enforcement system himself.
The prime minister’s lawyers said in a statement: “The memorandum that was submitted disregards, literally, the court’s decision, and it amounts to self-judgment. In fact, the indictment’s submission to the court is an attempt to impose its rejected position, and to appeal the court’s decision under the guise of a “request for clarification,” while blatantly violating its decision. “
The Likud responded: “Until now, the prosecutor’s office claimed that the ombudsman’s approval was not part of the investigation material and therefore should not be passed on to defense attorneys, and now it claims that no written approval was needed at all. The State Attorney’s Office’s response proves that the State Attorney’s Office lied and that there was never any approval from the ombudsman to open an investigation against the prime minister, in violation of the Basic Law of the Government – and therefore the investigations against the prime minister are illegal. ”
“The prosecution’s response is a blatant violation of the court’s decision and demeans it. All of this is enough to immediately announce the closure of the tailor-made cases against a powerful right-wing prime minister, beginning with sin, continuing to blackmail witnesses, conflict of interest and covering investigations.”