Coalition whip Ofir Katz urged Court President Esther Hayut to publicly back the judges against criticisms for suggesting that the prosecution consider dropping the bribery charge against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because they would have trouble proving it
A day after a former state prosecutor lambasted the judges in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut came to the defense of Israeli judges in general, though without reference to those hearing Netanyahu’s case. “Israel’s judges do their job faithfully, professionally and fearlessly,” Hayut said during a farewell visit to courts in the south in advance of her retirement this October.
>> Netanyahu on trial: everything you need to know
Last week, the judges released a summary confirming that they had suggested that the prosecution consider dropping the bribery charge against Netanyahu because they would have trouble proving it.
In response, former State Prosecutor Moshe Lador said “an unprecedented mishap occurred in court. … It was a real ‘terror attack.’ That’s not how you manage a case, certainly not such an important one.”
“In this highly significant and important case, the judges haven’t demonstrated the appropriate and required independence, and at least publicly, they’ve [already] handed down a verdict,” added Lador, who was speaking at a cultural event in Be’er Sheva.
On Sunday, coalition whip Ofir Katz urged Hayut to publicly back the judges against criticisms by Lador and others. “I would expect you to come to the defense of judges who are being viciously attacked because of their judicial decision,” he wrote in a letter to her, adding that doing so “regardless of which side of the political map it came from will help reinforce public trust in the system you head.”
The court had noted earlier that “the remarks were made with the necessary caution,” and “none of those present expressed reservations or asked that minutes be recorded.”
In response, a representative told the judges that the prosecution sees things differently, and added that only a partial picture of the case has been presented thus far. However, the representative added that she would pass along the judges’ message to her superiors.
Also noted in the summary was that, on the sidelines of the meeting, there was a short discussion with the two sides about the need to end the trial “for the good of the matter and of the country.” The issue was raised without any connection to how the legal proceedings would end, or what the results of the trial would be, the judges noted.