“Donald Tusk always, very cleverly, – I guess you could call these gentlemen – replaced the useful idiots he had around him. If it’s not Kierwiński, then Sienkiewicz. If it’s not Sienkiewicz, then Bodnar. If it’s not Bodnar, then Domański. There was always someone signing documents for him. Someone always signed documents for him, and now Donald Tusk left the murder weapon at the scene. He said directly that his co-signature would be revoked, which means he admitted that he would violate the Constitution,” said Andrzej Śliwka, a lawyer and member of parliament from Law and Justice, in an interview with wPolityce.pl.
At the end of August, Prime Minister Donald Tusk signed the decree of President Andrzej Duda to appoint Judge Krzysztof Wesolowski to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. This angered the judicial “caste”, and now he decided… to withdraw his co-signature.
READ MORE: Tusk wants to tame the “caste”? “I have decided to withdraw the co-signature.” This is the result of a complaint by judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court!
There is no such institution in Polish law as the annulment of the countersignature signed by the Prime Minister. Its provisions are regulated in detail in the Polish Constitution. Article 144 section 2 states that official acts of the President require for their validity the signature of the Prime Minister, who by signing the act is accountable to the Polish Sejm.
– Andrzej Śliwka explains in an interview with wPolityce.pl.
Even Professor Marek Chmaj, a friend of Civic Platform and the supervisor of many platformer PhDs, stated that there is no such thing as avoiding the consequences of a co-signature or withdrawing a co-signature, because the provisions of civil law, such as a mistake, threat or withdrawal of the consequences, cannot be applied
– the politician emphasizes.
From a legal point of view, we are dealing with a situation in which Donald Tusk openly wants to violate the Constitution, because he wants to use an instrument that, firstly, does not exist, and secondly, even if it did exist, it does not exist. assigned to him, as President of the Council, to ministers
– says Śliwka about the legal issue, but in this situation there is also a political issue:
This is a very interesting situation, because Donald Tusk always, very cleverly, replaced the useful idiots he had around him – I guess you could call these gentlemen. If it’s not Kierwiński, then Sienkiewicz. If it’s not Sienkiewicz, then Bodnar. If it’s not Bodnar, then Domański. Someone always signed documents for him, and now Donald Tusk left the murder weapon at the scene. He said directly that his co-signature would be revoked, which means that he admitted that he would violate the Constitution.
Implications
Andrzej Śliwka points out that such an action has consequences.
It is worth remembering that the Prime Minister can be held liable for violating the Constitution before the State Tribunal, but if we look at the creative interpretation of Article 231 of the Criminal Code, which refers to the abuse of power that has recently taken place by the Bondarists, I think this should also apply to Donald Tusk. At this point he is exceeding his authority
– he notes.
Andrzej Śliwka also answers the question of whether the Prime Minister can be considered competent if he first explains the signing of the co-signature as a mistake by an official and now wants to withdraw from it.
Donald Tusk has people around him who understand this situation. They realize that this action is illegal. Tusk is already so brazen that he thinks he will rule forever. This is his mistake, because no one rules forever and Donald Tuska will be held responsible for his unlawful and illegal actions
– explains the Member of Parliament for Law and Justice.
So far he has avoided making decisions; it was Sienkiewicz who made the decision about TVP. It was Bodnar who took action in connection with the illegal takeover of the State Prosecutor’s Office. It was Domański who illegally withheld payment of the full amount to Law and Justice. It was other politicians who took actions to restrict democracy in Poland. And now Donald Tusk has made a decision for the first time, which he signed, and this signature really carries weight – that’s why he will be held responsible for it
– remembers.
Maybe a resolution?
Andrzej Śliwka also answers the question of the wPolityce.pl portal whether the issue cannot be resolved, as usual, with a resolution, as the December 13 coalition did with regard to public media.
What the politicians of the Civic Platform, led by Donald Tusk, have done so far is to turn the matter upside down. They respected the Polish Constitution, which refers directly to the sources of law: the Constitution itself, laws and ratified international agreements. But for Tusk, for the Bodnar supporters, the most important thing was what Tusk would say. This decision of Tusk is in line with the principle of application of the law “as they understand it”, there is only one person responsible for such actions, because no one is above the law. Not even Donald Tusk. For his party officials and Bodnar supporters in the neo-national prosecutor’s office, the fact that Donald Tusk would write something on toilet paper is more important than the provisions of the Constitution, laws and other legal acts, but this is not the case. Donald Tusk would like to reduce Poland to a banana republic in which he issues orders and makes decisions by decree, but this is not the case either.
– explains and summarizes:
They have had the Constitution on their lips for eight years and now they have to adapt to it. If they do not, they will be held responsible – politically, as far as the State Tribunal is concerned, and criminally – for their illegal practices. actions.
READ MORE:
– And now what?! Even Prof. Chmai believes that Tusk cannot withdraw the co-signature: this cannot be done. This would cause chaos
— The Internet was in an uproar after Tusk’s decision to withdraw the co-signature! ‘He has lost his virtue, he has not earned a single ruble and will still have to pay’
as above
Source: wPolityce