Court rejects PM Netanyahu's request to delay trial testimony

The Jerusalem District Court judges on Wednesday rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to reschedule his testimony, set to begin on December 2.

“The starting point for this discussion,” the judges noted, “is that in our decision on July 9, 2024, we set December 2, 2024, as the start date for the defense stage, having considered all relevant factors, including the state of war.”

They added, “While certain events during the war, some detailed in this request, have occurred, others were already known at the time of the decision. We are not convinced of any material change in circumstances that would justify altering the scheduled date.”

The judges also reminded the defense that “five months were allocated for preparation in our July 9 decision. This decision considered both the time previously allotted and the remaining time, around three weeks before the defense stage begins, which should be sufficient for the necessary preparations. We trust that the defense and Defendant 1 will be ready for the hearing as scheduled.”

The only remaining option for the Prime Minister is to file a petition with the High Court of Justice challenging this decision, as there is no right to appeal such decisions in criminal proceedings. However, previous High Court rulings have generally shown reluctance to intervene in scheduling matters for criminal testimonies.

Additionally, the court stated that there is no security assessment preventing the Prime Minister from testifying. “No evidentiary basis has been presented to us,” the court stated, indicating that no security opinion suggests Netanyahu cannot testify at the Jerusalem District Court.

Yesterday, the State Prosecutor’s Office opposed the request. The hearing began in open court but later moved to closed doors as the judges discussed security concerns related to the Prime Minister’s testimony.

Defense claims not enough prep time

Netanyahu’s attorney, Amit Hadad, argued, “We’re not asking for celebrity privileges, but we’re also not asking for celebrity disadvantages. This request was submitted out of necessity.” He continued, “Since the last decision, there have been developments, so we reviewed the calendar carefully and concluded that national priorities should come before Netanyahu’s personal concerns. The state’s needs take precedence, and he has prioritized them above his own.”

Hadad previously argued that recent security developments, including the assassination of Mohammed Deif, and the Hezbollah rocket that killed 12 children in Majdal Shams, have interfered with the defense team's preparations.

Hadad emphasized that the defense’s request “does not dramatically extend the trial; it’s the minimum of minimums.” He added, “The State’s response was extremely disappointing... If the Prime Minister were a reservist, he’d have been granted this request. So if the Prime Minister is managing an entire war and cannot always be available, we can’t just ignore that.”

He went on, “The Prime Minister has decided that the needs of the state come before anything else for him. What exactly did we ask for?”

Deputy State Attorney Yehudit Tirosh countered, telling the judges, “If it’s unclear, I’ll make it clear: the court already considered that we are at war. We hear from the defense that they can’t commit to the situation ten weeks from now, but we don’t think a defendant, even if he’s the Prime Minister, can dictate the trial’s schedule—especially when we can’t predict what will happen in ten weeks.”

Hadad responded, “The Prime Minister is not ready to testify—not even close. These are the facts, not speculation. We had reason to believe the Prosecutor’s Office would accept our request.”

He continued, “We expected this request would be met with cooperation from the State Prosecutor’s Office, especially given that the Attorney General is aware of the situation’s intensity. She attends cabinet meetings; she knows the demands. The Prime Minister is unprepared. This is not a performance; it’s reality. We’re talking about someone who has complete faith in his innocence.