“It is good that Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik are now free, but if the law had been respected, they would never have been detained and never put in prison,” says Dr. Bartłomiej Wróblewski, PiS MP, against the wPolityce. pl portal.
wPolityce.pl: As a lawyer, how do you assess the entire series of events – from the President’s pardon of MPs Kamiński and Wąsik in November 2015, through their unfounded judgment, imprisonment and finally – after the second pardon – release?
Dr. Bartłomiej Wróblewski: It is good that Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik are now free, but if the law had been respected, they would never have been arrested and never ended up in prison.
The fundamental problem is the fact that in 2015 the president had the right to pardon Kamiński and Wąsik – even in a situation where there was no final judgment. The classical right of pardon means the possibility of pardoning any person, at any stage of the criminal proceedings, thus freeing him not only from punishment, but also from the burdens associated with the procedure itself. This is how the law of grace from art. must be understood. 139 of the 1997 Constitution of the Republic of Poland.
If the 2015 pardon was effective, how can we explain that Kamiński and Wąsik were convicted at all?
Unfortunately, we experienced something like a revolt by some judges, which resulted in the presidential pardon not being respected. This ultimately led to both ministers going to prison. I’m glad they are free again.
What about their mandates? In his address to the media today, the Marshal of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia, announced that not only are Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik not members of parliament, but he has also banned the issuance of single-use passes so that they cannot enter the Sejm enter. courtroom and the buildings of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland in general.
This is strange because it is customary for everyone, including former parliamentarians, to be admitted to the Sejm, regardless of whether they still have a parliamentary mandate or not. This type of restriction is clearly discriminatory and clearly malicious. What is crucial is not only whether Ministers Kamiński and Wąsik can physically enter the Sejm, but also whether they can perform their duties, and in particular whether they can participate in the votes.
The Marshal of the Sejm should not be guided by political sympathies, but by substantive arguments, including the effective pardon in 2015, supported by the positions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The formal argument, in turn, is related to the fact that the Marshal made an announcement about the expiry of the mandates of both MPs, which was annulled by the Chamber for Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court. That is why both MEPs retain their mandates. Let us not forget that they made effective use of the appeal route and that the IKNiSP SN, the final authority, sided with them. The Marshal of the Sejm cannot ignore the final decisions of the Supreme Court.
What situations can we expect during tomorrow’s Sejm session if Hołownia does not allow MPs Kamiński and Wąsik to enter the Sejm?
I fear further violations of the law by the Chairman of the Sejm, with many consequences. In a situation where parliamentarians cannot participate in the deliberations, the legality of the Sejm’s decisions will inevitably be questioned, especially since we have a precedent. Indeed, some of the current rulers emphasize that the rulings of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court are invalid if the status of even one of the judges is questioned by them. In the same way, there will be those who will believe that all decisions of the Sejm are flawed and invalid.
I believe that questioning the status of a judge or judges – as in the case of accusations against the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court or other courts – does not in itself translate into the validity of their rulings. Drawing such conclusions goes too far and would lead to enormous legal uncertainty. In the same way, if both parliamentarians do not participate in the work of the Sejm, this does not automatically lead to the invalidity of resolutions adopted by the Sejm, laws adopted or other decisions taken. On the other hand, there is no doubt that such an anarchic way of interpreting the law by those currently in power before the courts must lead to the formulation of similar accusations against the Sejm.
Source: wPolityce