In the second step, the parliamentary majority takes full responsibility for the appointment of the prime minister. If the president were to take any action, he would certainly be accused of violating the constitution – emphasizes Prof. Anna Łabno, constitutionalist.
There are calls from politicians, journalists and lawyers that the President, in the second constitutional step (if Mateusz Morawiecki does not receive a vote of confidence from the Sejm), should refuse to appoint the candidate appointed by the Sejm, i.e. Donald Tusk, to the Prime Minister’s position. The argument is the recommendation of the committee investigating Russian influence on the internal security of the Republic of Poland in 2007-2022, which names the head of the PO among politicians who should not be entrusted with public functions related to state security.
So we ask prof. on wPolsce.pl television. Anna Łabno, a constitutionalist from the University of Silesia, wonders whether this convinces the president to violate the constitution.
I would not use such a term because I would take into account the intentions of these specialists and journalists (…) It is impossible that the President, if the Sejm appoints this or a specific person, could refuse to appoint a government . The essence of this second step is that, if the first attempt to appoint a government fails, the initiative passes to the Sejm and the Sejm then has the full right to make decisions (…) Unfortunately, there is no provision that allows the Sejm President to take this second step and take any action that would prevent the formation of a government.
When asked whether the committee’s advice was addressed to the Sejm, Prof. Łabno replied:
Formally speaking, of course. The statement of the committee representatives was addressed to the Sejm, to the Sejm majority, and it is the majority that takes responsibility for establishing a government under a specific leadership and with the reservations or warnings that have been expressed.
Later in the conversation, Prof. Łabno commented on the situation of the NBP President and the intention to summon and suspend him before the State Tribunal. According to the constitutionalist, the State Tribunal Act is unconstitutional in this regard and the independence of the President of the NBP and the institution of the National Bank cannot be compromised in any way.
READ ALSO: Marzena Nykiel: Does Tusk as Prime Minister pose a threat to state security? This is a tip for the Sejm, not the president. What does the Constitution of the Republic of Poland say?
Source: wPolityce
Emma Matthew is a political analyst for “Social Bites”. With a keen understanding of the inner workings of government and a passion for politics, she provides insightful and informative coverage of the latest political developments.