Shai Nitzan's remarks last night make it clear: The case against Mandelblit was closed due to "lack of evidence and lack of public interest" - but the judges who approved his appointment believed that it was closed due to innocence
Did the Attorney General and former State Attorney, Yehuda Weinstein and Shai Nitzan, mislead the High Court judges in the case of the appointment of Avichai Mandelblit as Attorney General?
On the face of it, the answer is yes.
In an interview he gave to Ulpan Friday last weekend, Nitzan first revealed the reason for closing the case against Mandelblit in the Harpaz case: "a combination of lack of evidence and lack of public interest."
Nitzan added that Weinstein "adopted" the combined cause of lack of evidence and lack of public interest.
Archive photo: Shmuel Buharis
Nitzan's remarks were not known to the High Court judges when they came to hear the petitions against Mandelblit's appointment to the ombudsman, due to his conduct as a prosecutor in the Harpaz case. The ombudsman at the time, Weinstein, announced his decision to close the case against Mandelblit - but without stating a reason for closing.
At the end of 2015, Mandelblit was elected ombudsman by the search committee, and in January 2016, his appointment to the government was approved.
Shortly afterwards, the High Court rejected petitions against the appointment of Mandelblit, and on March 2 of that year, the judges published their reasons for the rejection: "In the case before us," Judge Salim Jubran wrote at the time, (Of the investigation file against Mandelblit), but in light of his decision to close the investigation file, it seems that the case was closed, among other things, for reasons of innocence. "
That is, at the time of deciding whether Mandelblit deserved to serve as Attorney General - the Supreme Court justices did not even know that there was in fact a ground for closing Mandelblit's case - and that none of the grounds was innocence.
Shai Nitzan knew for sure that Judge Jubran's remarks were inconsistent with the facts - but despite this, no clarification was published on his behalf, and to this day the judges' decision has not been amended.
The fact that the case against Mandelblit was not closed innocently was also not known to the members of the search committee who approved his appointment as attorney general at the end of 2015, as well as not to the members of the government.
The difference between closing a case on the grounds of innocence and closing on other grounds, with an emphasis on lack of evidence, is dramatic - as Nitzan himself testified in what he wrote about a year ago, when he was still a state attorney: "In closing a case on 'lack of evidence'," Nitzan wrote in a document The State Attorney's instructions, "The case remains in the internal police records, and there is a possibility for the police and other competent bodies to review closed case records in the future. This may have family, social, occupational, public and other implications for the suspect's life and good name."
On the other hand, Nitzan noted, the reason for closing the "lack of guilt" was "intended to prevent the impression, even ostensibly, that there is a real suspicion as to the person's guilt. Accordingly, the investigation file has been deleted even from internal police records. "Any information about the case that was closed. This could have significant consequences from a public point of view as well, since such information will no longer be visible to the authorities."
Nitzan does not say this explicitly, but his own interpretation indicates that Mandelblit would have had great difficulty in being elected to the position of ombudsman - if he had known in public in real time that the case against him was closed on the ground of lack of evidence combined with another ground.
In fact, even after Mandelblit was appointed, Nitzan testified that Mandelblit urged him to close the case on the grounds of innocence: "He approached me and it burned in his bones," Nitzan referred to Mandelblit's inquiries: "He approached me like any person with a personal interest. "It was the most urgent thing in the world for him. He felt suffocated, it cost him his life."
On the other hand, Nitzan noted, "at that time I did a few more things and did not think it was the most urgent."
At this point, the issue of the conflict of interest in which Mandelblit was allegedly present with Nitzan enters the picture - but now we reveal that Mandelblit did not report this conflict of interest.
According to Amit Segal's revelation, Mandelblit felt that Nitzan, who was subordinate to him, "could hold me by the throat, do not know what he was thinking of himself ... doing it to me on purpose" - by not deciding in his open file. Mandelblit added that "who The one who sewed me was Dina (Zilber, Deputy Speaker) and Shai (Nitzan).
In other words, Mandelblit felt that at the time, two senior employees subordinate to him - State Attorney Nitzan and Deputy Attorney General Zilber - were putting undue pressure on him on an issue that "cost him his life."
Nitzan also admits that Mandelblit "approached me like any other person with a personal interest", and at the same time Mandelblit was recorded in his conversations with Naveh than that the fact that Nitzan is subordinate to him is irrelevant, since it is his "personal matter".
According to the Civil Service Commission's conflict of interest procedure, a public employee is prohibited from being in a situation of fear of a conflict of interest between his public work and his personal affairs.
The procedure further states that its purpose is "to prevent evil before it occurs, and therefore it is not necessary to prove the existence of an actual conflict of interest, but rather that there is an objective concern."
The objective fear of a conflict of interest in the present case is clear: the boss Mandelblit depends on his employees, Nitzan and Zilber, on a question that "costs him his life", in the form of the reason for closing his case.
If he 'dares' to take a course that he does not like - for example, not to investigate / file indictments against the prime minister - there is an objective fear that he will be harmed in his personal affairs.
This is why Mandelblit used the term "grabs me by the throat" - towards Nitzan.
Mandelblit's conflict of interest settlement of January 2016 reads: "In any case where there is a concern of a conflict of interest that has not been settled in this letter of commitment, I will have to consult with the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Justice and act in coordination with it."
The arrangement also states: "In the event that a change occurs ... I will update immediately."
Despite these things - the Ministry of Justice admits that Mandelblit did not update the Attorney General on the conflict of interest that developed - contrary to his commitment. The reason: there was nothing to update, since there was no conflict of interest. This interpretation, as stated, does not reflect the definition The conflict of interest of the Civil Service Commission, and does not match Mandelblit's feelings - as he expressed them in his recordings with Naveh.
Comments
The Ministry of Justice stated:
"The claim that Dr. Mandelblit was in a conflict of interest in relation to the factors involved in handling his case in connection with the Harpaz case is unfounded.
Therefore, no reference to this was required in the conflict of interest arrangement made for him. "
Yehuda Weinstein reported:
"Contact the Ministry of Justice"