Netanyahu rejects decision banning tycoons from funding his legal defense
PM’s attorney tells state comptroller Permits Committee overstepped its authority and made a ‘fundamentally wrong’ ruling
Legal representatives for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared Sunday that the premier does not intend to accept a decision banning funding from wealthy associates of his legal defense in the three corruption cases he is facing.
Attorney Navot Tel-Zur sent a letter to Ahuva Nevo, chief of staff for the State Comptroller and Ombudsman, declaring that the decision published earlier in the day by the Permits Committee was “fundamentally misguided in both procedural and substantive terms” and overstepped the committee’s purview.
“The decision is wrong — the prime minister does not intend to accept it,” Tel-Zur wrote.
“We take a grave view of the decision by the Permits Committee to reject the prime minister’s request to receive a permit for funding for his defense, without allowing his representatives to appear before the Permits Committee,” he added.
In its decision, the Permits Committee also ruled that funds already received from Netanyahu’s associates were inappropriate, and that he would have to return $300,000 to his cousin Nathan Milikowsky as well as give back business attire donated by American millionaire Spencer Partrich, Hebrew-language media reported.
Tel-Zur claimed that the Permits Committee had run afoul of a State Comptroller obligation to summon Netanyahu’s representatives to debate permission for the funding, “as required by the rules of natural justice.”
Earlier Sunday, Netanyahu’s Likud party slammed the committee’s ruling as “outrageous and one-sided, directed solely against Prime Minister Netanyahu.” In a statement, the party said, “Prime Minister Netanyahu will turn to the High Court of Justice against this scandalous decision.”
After State Comptroller Yosef Shapira’s office in December denied Netanyahu’s request for permission to have businessman Milikowsky, who is based in the US, and Partrich cover his legal fees, the premier’s legal defense team last month filed a renewed request to receive a million dollars in a first phase and $2 million later on. Netanyahu also reportedly said he would pay $100,000 out of pocket to help fund his legal defense.
In one of the cases against him, the prime minister is suspected of receiving benefits from rich benefactors in return for using his offices to advance their interests. In its December decision, the State Comptroller’s Permits Committee said it was inappropriate for non-Israeli benefactors to pay for legal defense in a criminal case relating to receiving funds from wealthy benefactors.
In addition to the investigation into the gifts he received from billionaire benefactors, Netanyahu is being investigated in two other probes involving potential quid pro quo deals for regulatory favors or beneficial legislation in exchange for positive media coverage. Police have recommended that he be indicted for bribery in all three cases, a charge that state prosecutors reportedly also favor in at least one of the affairs.
Netanyahu has denied wrongdoing, and has accused the media, the left, and law enforcement officials of waging a witch hunt against him.
Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, Israel’s top legal officer, is expected to publish his conclusions on the three cases within the next week, after rejecting the prime minister’s demand that any decision to indict be postponed until after Israel’s April 9 elections.
Mandelblit can only file charges after holding a hearing with Netanyahu, which will likely not take place until after the election.
Netanyahu has vowed not to step down if Mandelblit announces that he intends to indict him, pending a hearing, in any of the cases against him, asserting that the law does not require him to do so. Mandelblit has confirmed that this is the case.
Israeli law only requires that a prime minister step down if convicted, but experts have suggested that Netanyahu may also face pressure from jurists and fellow lawmakers if he seeks to stay in office, should a formal indictment be filed at the completion of a hearing process.
Under law and High Court of Justice precedent, ministers other than the prime minister are required to step down in such a situation. There is no clear legal rule regarding the prime minister.
