How will the coronavirus crisis impact Netanyahu’s trial?

On Tuesday, Nissenkorn reiterated that “even during the corona crisis, the Knesset and the courts must continue to function.”

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wearing a mask, stands inside the courtroom as his corruption trial opens at the Jerusalem District Court May 24, 2020. (photo credit: REUTERS/RONEN ZEVULUN)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, wearing a mask, stands inside the courtroom as his corruption trial opens at the Jerusalem District Court May 24, 2020.
(photo credit: REUTERS/RONEN ZEVULUN)
The next hearing in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bribery trial is set for July 19.
Or is it?
When the Knesset passed the new emergency-powers coronavirus law on Monday night, it effectively gave the executive branch the power to take all kinds of unpredictable actions, while only having to answer to other branches of government later – and only if the other branches are loud enough.
One place where this could have a huge impact is Netanyahu’s trial.
Originally, Netanyahu’s trial was set to start on March 17.
Less than a week before March 17, the Jerusalem District Court rejected Netanyahu’s lawyers request for a postponement.
Yet only days later, over the weekend before that Tuesday, then-justice minister (and Netanyahu loyalist) Amir Ohana issued an emergency order closing down almost the entire judicial branch due to coronavirus.
This delayed the opening of Netanyahu’s trial until May 24.
It was not only a two-month delay, but it gave Netanyahu breathing room while he was trying to form a coalition.
There was tremendous criticism of the move that delaying Netanyahu’s trial was politics and not corona-related, since many court proceedings continued in person and many others continued by videoconference.
Upon entering office in May, one of the first promises current Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn made was that he would not shut down the judiciary the same way Ohana had.
Nissenkorn said it was crucial that all three branches continue to operate, even during emergencies, to ensure no one branch took on too much power.
Specifically regarding Netanyahu, the understanding was that Nissenkorn would not shut down the courts, and this would ensure Netanyahu’s trial would go forward as scheduled.
Maybe the journalists would need to cover the trial from an adjacent room with closed-circuit TV running, but the trial would go on.
This was important because Nissenkorn’s Blue and White Party already went back on its promise not to sit in a government with Netanyahu.
Their fallback position after shifting on that issue was that by joining the government, they could ensure his trial went forward and protect both the courts and the state prosecution from abuse.
But now the situation is unclear.
On Tuesday, Nissenkorn reiterated that “even during the corona crisis, the Knesset and the courts must continue to function.”
This could be important in terms of guaranteeing that once again the High Court of Justice will remain open, as closing it would truly remove any brakes on moves to abuse power.
However, if Netanyahu and the cabinet can vote through almost any emergency measure under the guise of protecting the country from coronavirus, why can’t they again shut down the courts to delay his trial?
Further, Nissenkorn did not explicitly mention Netanyahu’s trial, just the courts in general.
Also, the High Court of Justice and other courts stayed open in March while Netanyahu’s trial was postponed.
There are plenty of infected judges and clerks, as in March, so it is not as if the cabinet would have nothing to base themselves on.
Yet anyone who is committed to the Netanyahu trial going forward in a timely manner would find a way for it to continue with special physical arrangements or by videoconference.
This is certainly true for the July 19 hearing for which Netanyahu is not even required to appear physically.
Whether Netanyahu’s trial continues on July 19 will be a major test for Blue and White and for whether Monday night’s law was razor-focused only on protecting average citizens or whether it will be abused for more problematic purposes.