""Infringement of privacy": Nir Hefetz sues Yair Netanyahu for half a million shekels

January 6, 2020   

The Prime Minister's former media advisor, Nir Hefetz, a state witness in Case 4000, filed a lawsuit today (Monday) for half a million shekels against Yair Netanyahu, for what he defined as a violation of his privacy. Hefetz claims in the lawsuit that Yair Netanyahu published details of Hefetz's interrogation on his Twitter account, including those protected by a gag order. Hefetz's lawyer wrote: "The clear purpose of the above malicious publications was to disparage and humiliate the plaintiff, while severely and seriously infringing on his privacy." According to Hefetz's lawyers, Netanyahu "seriously, severely, contemptuously, improperly and intentionally infringed on his privacy, and all with the intention of harming him." In the lawsuit, which was filed with the Netanya Magistrate's Court, Hefetz claimed that the goal was to disrupt his testimony as a state witness: "to pressure him, harass him and disqualify him from testifying truthfully to the enforcement authorities." About a week and a half ago, Hefetz also filed a lawsuit against Justice Minister Amir Ohana. This was after Ohana revealed details from the state witness's interrogation in the Knesset plenum. According to Hefetz, the words the minister said in the Knesset plenum were said with the aim of disparaging and humiliating him, while allegedly committing a violation of a statutory duty, including obstruction of justice and harassment of a witness, and violation of privacy. Hefetz also sued Galei Tzahal commentator Yaakov Bardugo. These are two lawsuits for half a million shekels each, which were filed with the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court. Both on grounds of defamation, violation of privacy and other tortious grounds. Last month, the Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court allowed publication that as part of the state witness's interrogation, the police summoned a woman who had been in a relationship with Hefetz and, as part of an open testimony, she was asked intrusive questions regarding the nature of the relationship between her and Hefetz. In order not to violate her privacy, the court ruled that it is prohibited to publish information about the woman's identity and the relationship between her and Hefetz.