“I am a prosecutor and I act in accordance with the law,” declared National Prosecutor Dariusz Barski as he stood outside the Public Prosecutor’s Office, barred from entering the building.
Barski, who remains the legally designated national prosecutor according to a ruling by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, arrived at the National Prosecutor’s Office building amid a swirl of cameras and questions from local journalists. His appearance underscored the ongoing tensions between the Supreme Court’s decisions and the executive’s interpretation of those judgments, a debate that has drawn attention from legal observers and political circles in Poland.
“I came here simply to perform my official duties, in line with the Supreme Court ruling. I am a public prosecutor and I act by the law. I do my duty. If entry is denied, I will not force the gate with my head. I will not use violence, as the Public Prosecution Service has against me,” he told reporters in front of the PK building. Observers noted the calm, measured tone with which he spoke, even as the scene underscored a broader clash over who truly holds the authority to interpret court decisions and grant access to offices tied to the state’s prosecutorial power.
“I believe that I am a national prosecutor and that I must fulfill my professional duties because the Ministry of Finance pays me and because I was appointed to this position by the Prime Minister with the President’s consent,” he added, insisting on the legitimacy of his role and the formal processes that underpin his appointment. His insistence reflected a broader argument that the office’s legitimacy rests on constitutional procedures and high-level approvals, not on momentary political calculations.
“As you can see, I wasn’t allowed in,” Barski remarked, pointing to the closed doors as a visual symbol of the dispute over rightful authority and proper procedure in the Executive branch and its relationship to the judiciary.
“We are here because of the Supreme Court ruling, which found that PG’s actions were unlawful. So far, the attorney general has not taken a position. The National Public Prosecutor’s Office has stated its stance on the judgments that it considers to be judicial decisions,” Barski explained, outlining what he saw as a gap between judicial findings and the executive or prosecutorial responses that follow.
When asked about the Korneluk prosecutor’s office, the national prosecutor replied: “Prosecutor Korneluk is not a discussion partner for me because he is not the National Prosecutor. There cannot be two national prosecutors.” His comments highlighted a fundamental dispute over who holds the ultimate title and who is authorized to speak for the office in matters of national scope.
Ostrowski’s statement
Deputy Attorney General Michał Ostrowski spoke earlier. He asserted that there is no such thing as “neo-judges.” He noted that several hundred rulings by earlier judges have been recognized by the Attorney General and carry weight in ongoing matters, a remark aimed at clarifying how precedent is treated in the current legal framework.
When a journalist suggested that the questioned judges were “wrongly appointed,” Barski responded that such a claim was not true. The exchange underscored the charged atmosphere surrounding the judiciary and the persistent debate over appointments, authority, and legitimacy in the Polish system of public prosecution.
The events of the day illustrate a larger conversation about the interaction between the Supreme Court, the Office of the Attorney General, and the bodies that administer Poland’s prosecutorial framework. They reveal a moment when legal interpretation, official protocol, and political pressures intersect in a way that captures the attention of observers both at home and abroad. In North America, analysts and readers may watch closely to understand how constitutional rulings translate into real-world governance and how the balance of power among the highest legal authorities can affect prosecutions and public trust. This developing story serves as a reminder that the rule of law relies not only on written decisions but also on the governance structures that implement them, day by day. In this light, the Polish case offers a vivid example of how courts, prosecutors, and political actors navigate a complex ecosystem of authority, legitimacy, and accountability.