Last update - 00:00 13/02/2008
Aides: Katsav should break gag order in sex crimes plea bargain
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
Some of former president Moshe Katsav's advisers are recommending that he violate a gag order issued as part of the High Court of Justice's ongoing deliberations on his case, Haaretz has learned. However, his attorneys strongly oppose the idea.
After Attorney General Menachem Mazuz signed a plea bargain with Katsav last summer that convicted him of sexual harassment but included neither rape charges nor jail time, some of the complainants against him petitioned the court against the deal. In his response, Mazuz detailed the problems with the evidence that had led him to decide not to go to trial, which reportedly included severe doubts about the complainants' credibility. However, the court imposed a gag order on this section of his brief.
Now, some of Katsav's advisers believe that the former president ought to violate the gag order and publicize this material. However, his attorneys are vehemently opposed, saying this would both break the law and demonstrate contempt for the court.
One Katsav adviser who favors violating the gag order explained that the court "permitted all the complainants to voice their complaints against the president, but when we requested permission to publicize the very harsh things that Mazuz said in his statement about the complainants' credibility, the court rejected the request, with no explanation. The more time passes without a ruling being issued on the petitions, the greater the injustice done to the president from a public standpoint becomes. Therefore, we are thinking of violating the gag order in the near future."
But one of Katsav's attorneys countered: "This is not a concrete plan of action, but a thought that arose in the context of one of our discussions" on how to deal with the court's delay in issuing a verdict.
At the same time, Katsav's attorneys do object to the gag order, arguing that since the court permitted publication of the draft indictment against the former president, it should also permit publication of Mazuz's review of the evidence. Both are internal documents that are highly damaging to one party in the case, they argued; the only difference is which party. Moreover, they said, the analysis of the evidence essentially invalidates the draft indictment by concluding that it was based on shaky evidence.
Nevertheless, they believe that as long as the order exists, it must be honored.
Some of Katsav's advisers hope that even if it is never carried out, the threat of violating the gag order will persuade the court to move more quickly. All the hearings have already been held, thus all that remains is for the justices to write up their verdict.
The writing process has taken a long time because the ruling is expected to go beyond the specifics of the case to address fundamental issues such as where to strike the balance between evidentiary doubts and the public interest in trying senior officials.
The Justice Ministry and the Supreme Court declined to comment on this report.
Related articles: