A public confrontation has grown over the handling of a political case, with a claim that a prosecutor’s office attempted to disqualify a judge for reasons deemed absurd. This occurred in the context of a case in which a former deputy minister from a centrist party presided over a political matter. A politician from a nationalist party highlighted these developments in an interview, arguing that such grounds were not considered when a different official from the same party was involved in ruling on the matter.
Information emerged that the neo-national prosecutor’s office, associated with a reform-minded figure, requested the exclusion of Judge Przemysław Dziwański from addressing the complaint about the decision not to apply pre-trial detention to a Member of Parliament. The MP’s legal representative announced that the Warsaw court did not grant this request. The discussion around the request drew comments from another member of the nationalist bloc about the procedure.
The narrative was framed by speakers who asserted that the National Prosecutor’s Office has acted without a solid foundation, including scrutiny of a separate fund tied to justice reform. They argued that the office is attempting to avoid accountability and that a high-ranking official, who enjoys immunity, was unlawfully deprived of his liberty through temporary arrest. They suggested that the prosecutors are trying to influence the process to arrange a jury, but that these efforts did not succeed in this instance.
A prominent political figure stressed that the prosecutors had tried to exclude the judge on grounds that did not appear credible in a case involving a former deputy minister from the Civic Platform government, who had previously ruled on a political issue. This was presented as evidence of the motives of supporters of Bodnar, the reform advocate associated with the Prosecutor’s Office, according to the speaker.
The same voice estimated that the prosecutors’ actions resembled conduct that could be described as criminal, suggesting that the actions of the Public Prosecution Service might amount to judicial wrongdoing. The speaker raised questions about possible corruption or other improper incentives, such as offerings related to judicial appointments, and discussed the implications for the independence of the judiciary.
The argument was extended to the issue of influence over judicial decisions, which was described as punishable by law. The speaker warned of a dangerous precedent when the Attorney General is seen as having the power to determine the composition of courts, effectively amounting to the ordering of sentences.
Assessment of the Government’s Justice Policy
The discussion continued with a summary of nearly eight months of activity attributed to Bodnar and the associated reform team. The narrative claimed that several actions clashed with constitutional principles and laws, pointing to what were described as abuses of authority, including how judges are appointed and how cases involving politicians in the prosecution service are handled. The criticism also touched on reform proposals and what were described as mistakes in the dismissal of capable prosecutors.
The speaker argued that, beyond the illegal basis of certain actions, those involved have had little to no positive impact. It was claimed that economic courts have performed poorly and that allegations such as Pegasus have distracted intelligence work, potentially affecting how security services operate. The psychological impact was described as a chilling effect that could deter prosecutors from pursuing criminals or political figures, especially in light of reactions from party members.
Only here in this narrative, the discussion points to additional commentary about the long-term risk to the justice system if the current dynamics persist. Critics argued that the system is in a state of crisis and that reforms are not advancing, while notable missteps in leadership and policy implementation were highlighted as evidence of broader dysfunction.
Source: wPolityce