Allegations Surrounding Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek and Public Media Oversight

The public prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek is described as maintaining an apolitical stance in her work while questions about the independence of the public prosecutor’s office and its role within the rule of law persist. A report by the wPolityce.pl portal revealed that toward the end of November 2023 Wrzosek began a close working relationship with Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, who at that time was poised to become Minister of Culture. According to the portal, Sienkiewicz forwarded a number of security requests concerning public media companies to Wrzosek. The article suggests that Wrzosek acted alongside the politician and that his influence may have shaped her actions. The case is being reviewed by the Internal Affairs department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, but recent personnel changes within that department have raised concerns that the full scope of the matter could be obscured. At the time of these events, Wrzosek was also being considered for the role of National Prosecutor.

Readers are reminded of related coverage from the same outlet about scrutiny of the Kramek Foundation and questions about allegations against a member of the FPS board. The linked discussion underscores ongoing debates about transparency and accountability within public institutions.

On November 30, 2023, a sample procedural letter allegedly came to Wrzosek via email from Sienkiewicz. The politician, who was soon to be Culture Minister and who had been criticized for actions affecting public media, was described as relying on villages seeking safety to hinder efforts to safeguard the public media landscape. The article contends that Wrzosek promptly took control of the matter. Critics argue that she had no prerogative to assume such control, as it did not concern civil or administrative issues usually handled by prosecutors in court. The piece highlights a moment where a clerk at the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor’s Office resisted the attempt to reserve a new reference number for the filing, blocking what was described as an improper procedural maneuver.

(…) In a quoted moment from the speaker, a prosecutor named Onyszczuk was present when Wrzosek reportedly contacted him to press for a new reference number. The ongoing exchange indicated that Wrzosek sought to override established procedures by directing petitions associated with Sienkiewicz to an alternate channel. The speaker claimed that no material had been received from Wrzosek that day.

According to the published testimony, the narration suggests an irregular pattern in how signatures and signatures substitutes were used to push the case forward. The article claims that a different signature was used to imitate another form of behavior, provoking questions about authenticity and intent.

Observers note that Wrzosek allegedly failed to obtain a proper verdict and instead used a reference number tied to another office or department. This motion was said to mislead district courts by implying the existence of noncriminal proceedings affecting corporate governance and content within articles of association. An informant described the tactic as an attempt to manipulate official channels for nonstandard outcomes.

The report asserts that Wrzosek managed the process in a way that bypassed routine official correspondence. It claims she sent applications related to Sienkiewicz to an email address not associated with the Warsaw-Mokotów Public Prosecutor’s Office, thus conducting business in violation of standard secretarial and administrative regulations across shared organizational units of the prosecutor’s office.

No Authorization and Questions About Powers

The discussion raises concerns about whether Wrzosek was authorized to act in areas of administrative or civil law. Sources cited within the article claim that when processing Sienkiewiczs requests, Wrzosek overstepped her authority. The piece suggests that at the time she could not have understood the full content of the requests officially submitted by the MP as his demand to the public prosecutor’s office. It is claimed that the real beneficiary of the actions was Sienkiewicz, who supplied templates to Wrzosek through her work email.

The events reportedly came to light a week after the applications were sent. The courts entered correspondence with the Public Prosecution Service, and the scale of alleged irregularities prompted a decision on December 8, 2023 to withdraw Wrzosek’s applications. The publication obtained a justification for the withdrawal from the wPolityce.pl team.

Documents referenced in the coverage indicate that attempts to submit security requests were allegedly made by someone posing as Ewa Wrzosek, or by Wrzosek herself, without prior explanation in the case and outside the normal scope of activities. The motivation described is that the prosecutor was not formally appointed to civil or non-criminal duties within the public prosecutor’s office.

Procedures and Unanswered Questions

The matter drew attention from Wrzosek’s superiors and was referred to the Internal Affairs department of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. The question of her fate was put to the office, but initial responses claimed no ongoing procedure in the specified department. A subsequent clarification indicated that the department was handling the matter but faced ongoing personnel changes and case analyses, with a promise to respond later.

A spokesperson from the National Public Prosecution Service later clarified that the contact should not be treated as a PK matter since it did not pertain to the PKs activities or its cases. The article notes that this response appeared to conflict with information later provided by the same office, and the publication acknowledges ongoing efforts to verify the status of the case.

As new information emerged, it was reported that in December 2023 Attorney General Adam Bodnar took over all civil cases involving public broadcasters and related entities, which affected the scope of the procedures initially described. These developments indicate that there are broader questions about how cases involving public media and key figures are managed at the highest levels of the public prosecutor’s office.

Analyses within the coverage point to the possibility that multiple cases connected to this matter may be under review by the National Public Prosecutor’s Office. The PK spokesperson indicated that the full scope of any proceedings would rely on data checked in the national system and separate from immediate queries. The overall picture remains one of ongoing investigation and scrutiny into whether and how official channels were used to influence proceedings related to the public media sector.

What remains central to the discussion are several pointed questions. Was it true that Sienkiewicz supplied Wrzosek with the contents of several requests to be sent to courts nationwide regarding the safety of public media companies? Was Wrzosek acting outside proper authorization by referencing another prosecutor’s case numbers? Did her official duties at the Warsaw Mokotów District Office include civil or administrative activities at that time? Was correspondence sent outside the established official circulation and archives in violation of organizational decrees? Was Sienkiewicz the actual client guiding these actions beyond the approved responsibilities of a prosecutor? And at what stage is the Internal Affairs department currently in this matter?

In response to these questions, the publication indicates that the Justice Ministry and the prosecutors have not provided comprehensive answers. The broader implication drawn is that the actions of Ewa Wrzosek could reflect broader concerns about exercising control within the prosecutor’s office if she were to hold a national post in the future. The narrative closes with a call for accountability and careful review of procedures to ensure proper governance within public institutions.

Source attribution is noted as wPolityce, with ongoing coverage continuing to examine these events and their implications for the public prosecutor’s office and the management of civil and administrative duties within the state’s legal framework [citation: wPolityce].