Bodnar’s concept and the politics behind the National Council for the Judiciary
The justice minister and attorney general, Adam Bodnar, has stirred debates about reforms to the National Council for the Judiciary. His ideas have raised alarms within the ruling coalition and beyond, with some colleagues describing the approach as risky. Yet Bodnar appears to have shifted his stance, suggesting that shortening the terms of members elected after 2017 may not be on the table. Instead, he now asserts that the Council, in its current form, may have never truly existed as a functioning body.
In a government led by Donald Tusk, Bodnar was charged with restoring the rule of law, but critics argue his methods blur conventional lines. Questions have arisen about the power to appoint so-called “strong figures” and “liquidators” into public media, and whether presidential prerogatives are being challenged. The debate has touched on cases involving MPs such as Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, and even on instances of symbolic acts like naming nominees to non-existent posts in the National Public Prosecution Service and affixing labels to cupboards. The result is growing unease about potential shifts to Poland’s justice framework.
Poles, especially those outside the governing camp, express concern about proposed changes to the justice system. European Union institutions have, in some interpretations, signaled that Poland’s rule of law remains intact, a stance that fuels internal political contention about what real reform should look like.
Bodnar’s plan in context
Opposition voices have sounded the alarm as the current ruling coalition contemplates altering the Constitutional Court and related bodies. What does Bodnar’s plan for the National Council for the Judiciary entail?
A draft amendment to the National Council for the Judiciary Act appeared on January 12, 2024, and was prepared by the Ministry of Justice. The stated aim was to address operational questions facing the council. However, within the government, opinions on the best path forward diverge, hinting at deeper disagreements about constitutional design.
Journalist Patryk Słowik noted in Wirtualna Polska that fundamental changes were contemplated in a short period, signaling a rapid shift in direction.
The January 11 proposal from the Justice Ministry mentioned the shortening of terms for members elected under the 2017 provisions. However, officials later voiced doubts about the necessity and legality of altering tenure lengths midstream.
Why shorten the term now? Or not at all?
Ministry and government officials fielded questions about the draft. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that the proposal did not provide a court’s right of appeal for members whose mandates would be terminated under the new law, raising potential concerns under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A minister-member of the Council of Ministers, Maciej Berek, called for thorough constitutional explanations regarding any proposed term reductions.
In response to the scrutiny, Bodnar shifted his position and stated that shortening terms would not proceed, arguing that the current form of the Council did not exist as a valid entity to begin with. He reasoned that it could not be assumed that those seated on the Council had been properly chosen to serve, and therefore their mandates could not be legitimately exercised.
That stance was communicated in an official briefing to Minister Berek. The ministry emphasized that there was no legal basis for filing an appeal or for reducing terms for individuals who, elected by the Sejm, were not authorized to serve on the Council of the judiciary.
Observers have noted a broader pattern where changes to state institutions appear to follow a meme-like logic: if something is not allowed but is desired, attempts may be made to proceed anyway. This descriptive trend seems to guide ongoing reforms across several bodies.
Citations and context: Bodnar’s court-related regulations and the National Council for the Judiciary’s response were discussed publicly by various media and political actors. Attribution: [citation: wPolityce] – A sovereign Poland MP attributed to Donald Tusk’s government the characterization of judicial reform as disordered and questioned the independence of judges and the broader political order. Attribution: [citation: wPolityce]
Concluding notes from the ministry underscore that the central question remains the legality and legitimacy of acting on mandates that may have never properly started, rather than simply altering terms midstream. The dialogue continues as parties seek a path that aligns with constitutional standards and democratic norms. Attribution: [citation: wPolityce]