Bodnar supporters target lawyer Wąsowski amid a Polish legal clash

In a forceful post, Bartosz Lewandowski cited material reported by the wPolityce.pl portal about actions by Bodnar supporters targeting lawyer Krzysztof Wąsowski. The issue centers on pressure to remove the attorney by suggesting the lawyer could be questioned as a witness. The attorney noted this raised serious concerns about defense rights. The representative for Father Michał Olszewski offered a revealing account: he had just received a letter addressed to him in his capacity as defender from the same prosecutor who earlier sought to label him as a potential witness barred from contacting suspects.

Bodnar supporters want to get rid of Wąsowski!

According to the wPolityce portal, Bodnar supporters aim to remove lawyer Krzysztof Wąsowski, who defends Father Michał Olszewski among others. A letter from Prosecutor Woźniak dated October 30, obtained by the outlet, cites a Supreme Court ruling in Warsaw and mentions that Father Olszewski and Urszula Dubejko reached out to other witnesses. The prosecutor asserts broad authority to decide who counts as a witness in these proceedings.

The letter warns that the ban applies to the defense and that continuing to represent the suspects could create procedural problems for them. It argues that contact with suspects or questions about defense rights must be limited to protect proper representation of clients.

The document is described as bizarre by Wąsowski. It states that defense lawyers cannot be questioned as witnesses, underscoring the standard that a lawyer is not allowed to serve as a witness in a case.

Wąsowski responded, noting that he has represented Father Olszewski since March 26, the day of the priest’s arrest. He questioned how the prosecutor’s office could refrain from questioning a lawyer as a witness before the arrests, suggesting a motive to remove him from the case.

The issue has prompted strong responses from Father Olszewski’s defender. The materials released have fueled debate about the proper boundaries between prosecutorial inquiry and the rights of defense in high profile matters.

Later, Bartosz Lewandowski shared his thoughts on social media about the dispute. He questioned whether a tactic similar to those seen in earlier political battles could be used to sideline a capable attorney from a crucial government case. He described the situation with blunt clarity and stressed the importance of safeguarding defense independence in such proceedings.

The lawyer noted that he had recently seen clients settle charges after filing complaints, yet he received a letter from the prosecutor in charge of the Justice Fund case indicating that contact with his clients should cease. This, he argued, would effectively force him to withdraw from defending his clients, raising questions about the consistency of the rules governing witnesses in this context. The prosecutor’s position appeared to hinge on treating him as a possible witness, despite clear limitations in the code of criminal procedure.

Lewandowski summarized the situation by stressing that a defense attorney who participates in hearings, reviews files, and submits substantive complaints should not be prohibited from representing clients. He observed that barriers imposed in such a way would undermine the right to effective defense. He added that the gravity of the matter requires scrutiny from multiple angles, given the potential implications for the case and for standard legal practice.

The exchange underscored a larger concern: the risk of eroding the essential separation between prosecutorial fact-finding and defense work. The defense, after all, must be free to examine witnesses, challenge evidence, and advocate for each client without undue harassment or coercive limitations that could tilt the balance in high stakes criminal proceedings.

Mec. Wąsowski publishes a series of entries

Wąsowski also spoke in a public series of statements that were circulated earlier. He explained his view of the prosecutor’s decision to forbid his defense team from communicating with clients and noted how a competing press outlet later revisited the topic of the so called sock business. He suggested that the reporting had shifted focus away from the core legal questions and toward sensational framing.

In a sequence of posts on a social platform, he clarified that the Profeto Foundation’s economic activity was not tied to a grant from the Justice Fund. He explained that the grant was routed through a separate bank account in accordance with the grant agreement and that the Foundation’s business dealings with other entities were not handled by him or his firm. He emphasized that those relationships are protected as trade secrets and should not be misconstrued as involvement by him or his firm.

He noted that he became the lawyer for Wadas Group in April 2022 and represented the client in a dispute with Many Mornings over intellectual property. He stressed that the dispute did not center on sock trading. He also mentioned his stake in Przestrzenie Kultury Sp z o.o., a company he helped establish with a partner, which registered in February 2022. He asserted that he had not billed the company and had not received profits as a shareholder. He added that there was no participation by Father Michał Olszewski or Urszula Dubejko in the described activities and suggested that some writers had made unfounded assumptions.

He explained that his aim in sharing this information was to illustrate the prosecution’s attempts to appoint him as a defender for Father Olszewski and Urszula in ongoing proceedings before the current Public Prosecution Office. The point, he argued, was to highlight the broader pattern of coercive measures affecting defense teams in such cases.

The Public Prosecution Service contradicts itself!

A notable update appeared on X when Wąsowski reported receiving a letter addressed to him as defense for Father Olszewski and Urszula from the same prosecutor who previously sought to classify him as a witness barred from contacting the suspects. The post captured the tension between different prosecutorial positions and the rights of defense, and it was described as emblematic of the conflicting signals coming from the public office.

Some observers found the sequence almost comical because of its grotesque contradictions, while others warned that the Bodnar supporters had a broader stake in shaping how such cases proceed, especially in the public eye. Wąsowski and his allies said they would document every development and would not forget the implications for due process in this and related cases.

A question persisted about actions regarding bail for the priest and other involved parties. The discussion drew into focus whether prosecutors were adequately checking the origins of funds in question and how such questions intersect with defense rights in ongoing political and legal battles. Coverage from various outlets continued to probe the judicial and procedural aspects of the matter while maintaining a wary eye on potential bias in reporting and interpretation by different actors in the system.

In this context, the debate over who may be called as a witness and who may retain legal representation remained central to the discourse. The ongoing exchange between defense counsel and prosecutors highlighted a broader conversation about fairness, transparency, and the boundaries of prosecutorial reach in Poland’s criminal justice landscape.