High Court judges today (Wednesday) rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request regarding the manner of submitting an affidavit in the Roman Goffman appointment case.
What is diabetes and prediabetes, how do we avoid them, and what are the warning signs? • Promoter
The judges ruled that the affidavit of the former head of the operations brigade, Brigadier General G., will be signed before Attorney Gali Baharav-Miara - and not before the Grunis Committee, as Netanyahu requested.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
The affidavit deals with a telephone conversation that Brigadier General G. had with Goffman about the operation of the teenager Uri Almakiis, while Goffman was serving as a division commander in the Northern Command.
Goffman responded negatively to the officer's question in real time, but in the absence of documentation of the question itself, there is a factual gap in the question of whether Goffman knowingly misled or concealed information.
Brigadier General G., who served as the operational commander during Goffman's tenure and whose testimony is required for a decision in the case, currently serves as a senior officer in the Mossad, a situation that places the officer in a complex situation, as the acting head of the Mossad, Dedi Barnea, opposes the appointment of Goffman - who may become Brigadier General G.'s direct commander.
Earlier, the Prime Minister approached the High Court of Justice through his attorneys and requested that the affidavit be submitted by an objective party. Netanyahu claimed that Baharav was representing "the petitioners" against the appointment - and therefore the document should not be submitted through her.
The judges' decision to submit the affidavit came following a hearing held yesterday on petitions against Goffman's appointment to the position of head of the Mossad.
In addition to submitting the affidavit, the judges determined that the materials that were before the Grunis Committee would be forwarded for their review. The move was intended to examine the claims raised against the planned appointment and the review process that was carried out prior to making the decision.
