Draft law on the National Council for the Judiciary
The Justice Minister and Attorney General, Adam Bodnar, rejects any claim that shifting positions within the Public Prosecution Service would weaken presidential authority. He explains that he respects the president’s words, while also acknowledging who actually carries out the work in the prosecutor’s office. In an interview on the Polsat News program Guest of Events, Bodnar was asked whether this signals a true split of powers within the Public Prosecution Service. He stated that he is accountable for how the Public Prosecution Service operates and holds the power to issue orders, directives, and clear instructions. He made it clear that dual power does not exist here.
On Polsat News, Bodnar warned that the government could set in motion a decade or more of damage to the rule of law, suggesting that eight years could be spent undermining essential pillars of the legal order. He arrived at this judgment after noting that two months into a new administration, several changes had already occurred within his ministry, even as he acknowledged that the legislative process would continue. He pointed out that the president treats all nominations as sacred and inviolable, despite widespread questions about the selection process and how appeals were handled. Several judges involved in these procedures lacked a meaningful path to challenge the outcomes before the Supreme Administrative Court.
He described this as a fundamental concern, naming the issue and stressing that a robust framework for judicial appointments is vital to the state’s legitimacy.
When pressed about whether the changes under the current administration bypass the president, Bodnar said he does not see any bypass of presidential authority. A bill concerning the National Council for the Judiciary is set to be reviewed by the Council of Ministers in the near term. The president retains a full constitutional right to express an opinion on the project before any substantive decision is made. Bodnar added that the project appears to align with the president’s stated preferences, reflecting a desire not to undermine the judicial appointments he has already made. The focus of the bill is to determine how members of the National Council for the Judiciary should be elected.
He stressed that judges appointed to the National Council for the Judiciary after the 2017 amendment to the Council Act cannot stand as candidates but can participate in elections. To address this, Bodnar proposed certain restrictions, arguing they are necessary to ensure a fair process.
There remains a dispute over the status of judges appointed through what Bodnar described as a politicized National Council for the Judiciary. He expressed the belief that a consensus must be found so that all judges in Poland can hold a clear, recognized mandate to preside over cases. The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have repeatedly questioned the status of these individuals, underscoring the importance of a solid legal framework. Bodnar urged the president to avoid deepening a state of unconstitutionality and suggested that establishing a functioning National Council for the Judiciary would be a key first step toward that goal, a move he hoped the president would also back. (Polsat News)
Bodnar underscored that his aim is to ensure the state functions efficiently and normally, even if at times he finds the president’s rhetoric exaggerated or unnecessary. The real issue, he argued, is that eight years have been spent undermining the rule of law in Poland in various ways.
Asked about changes in the position of the National Prosecutor, Bodnar explained that these shifts did not undermine presidential authority. He noted that none of his decisions affected other deputy attorneys general, numbering six, and that presidential consent would be required in those cases. In the Barski case, he described the matter as the unlawful retirement status of the prosecutor, a detail he said was resolved through specific procedures.
Double power at the Public Prosecution Service?
When questioned about a potential dual power scenario within the Public Prosecution Service, Bodnar replied that the president’s view could be considered, but the only real authority rests with the Attorney General and his position within the service. The minister stated that he is responsible for the service’s operation and has the right to issue orders and directives, and that there is no dual power.
He added that January saw the appointment of Jacek Bilewicz to a national-prosecutor role not explicitly listed in the official announcements, while Prosecutor Barski remained retired, complicating duties. He noted that Barski’s restoration to active duty occurred through provisions no longer in force. Bodnar remarked that the upcoming deadline for submitting candidates for the National Prosecutor was a critical moment, and he hoped the process would yield the best candidate with broad support.
The discussion also raised questions about balancing independence and accountability within the system. Bodnar hinted at pressures from various quarters and questioned why the president might be asked to sign an amendment challenged as unconstitutional by the National Council for the Judiciary, warning that such steps could stigmatize some judges.
Ultimately, Bodnar framed the broader aim as strengthening the state and ensuring the judiciary operates with legitimacy and fairness, free from political manipulation and with clear boundaries between branches of government.
He emphasized his focus on practical outcomes for governance and the rule of law, reiterating his belief that concrete changes are needed to restore trust and efficiency in state institutions. Coverage from Polsat News and related outlets reflected ongoing debates about the country’s judicial reforms and the ongoing tensions between the presidency, the legislature, and the judiciary.