The Central Anti-Corruption Bureau faced fresh scrutiny as it issued a defamation notice tied to the former CBA chief, Paweł Wojtunik. The acknowledgment came from Mariusz Kamiński, the coordinator of special services, via X, formerly known as Twitter. Kamiński asserted that neither the CBA nor any agency under his oversight monitored the opposition.
The CBA reports to the public prosecutor
Wojtunik claimed that the CBA and its subordinates did not surveil the opposition. He accused, in a post on X, that such insinuations motivated the bureau to inform the public prosecutor that Mr. Wojtunik had committed a crime under article 212 of the Criminal Code, which addresses defamation. The minister communicated this on Monday, asserting that the allegations were unfounded.
Article 212 defines defamation as repeating or publishing statements that could humiliate a person, a group, an institution, a legal entity, or an unincorporated unit, harming their reputation or confidence in a given role. Conviction can lead to fines or restricted liberty. When the defamation is carried out through the media, penalties can include a fine, restricted liberty, or up to a year of imprisonment. The Criminal Code further allows the court to award damages to the injured party, the Polish Red Cross, or another indicated social cause if a conviction results.
Wojtunik accuses the opposition of wiretapping
On Saturday evening, Wojtunik told TVN24 that information from various sources pointed to a meeting at the CBA training and conference center in Lucień, Masovian Voivodeship, where decisions were reportedly made on extensive use of operational control against opposition figures. He noted that the wiretapping could last five days, a period permissible under law without judicial oversight if the attorney general consents. He pressed questions at the ministerial level, asking whether the decisions and recommendations were aimed specifically at the Third Way party and whether senior security officials would participate in such a meeting.
Wojtunik raised further questions about whether the recommendations came from higher authorities, whether those authorities were aware or had approved them, and whether similar measures were discussed or implemented by other security and law enforcement agencies. He asked whether any information from such measures had been shared with other politicians or used in political negotiations. He warned that if any answer was affirmative, it could signal a potential conspiracy involving executive power and the secret services to influence a democratically elected legislature. The source of these rumors remained unverified, he said, leaving room for government spokespeople and coordinators to provide clarification.
He emphasized that his inquiry did not determine truthfulness but underscored the need to verify possible irregularities promptly, with clear answers rather than lingering speculation. He conveyed that he would rely on authorities to verify the facts rather than draw conclusions on his own.
Żaryn: The services act within legal bounds
Stanisław Żaryn, Deputy Minister and the Coordinator of Special Services, responded that Wojtunik’s questions and the circulated information were false. He contended that the services operate in full accordance with the law and rely on established regulations. In his assessment, Wojtunik had used recent interviews to spread unverified claims about surveillance of the opposition during elections. Żaryn stated that the security services function within legal limits and under proper oversight.
Żaryn added that Wojtunik had damaged his own credibility by publicizing rumors. He argued that such behavior undermines the integrity of the security apparatus and risks broader national stability. A senior official in the Prime Minister’s office echoed similar concerns, noting that spreading similar disinformation could erode Poland’s security and inflame public opinion, potentially destabilizing society. The sentiment was that these actions were inappropriate and harmful.
Deputy Interior and Administration Minister Maciej Wąsik also weighed in, labeling Wojtunik’s claims as lies. The tone of official commentary suggested that continued insinuations about eavesdropping might destabilize institutions and erode public trust. Several related statements framed the situation as a political tactic that could threaten the functioning of national security agencies.
The piece concluded with a note that the coverage originated from the news outlet wPolityce and represented multiple perspectives on the unfolding events, all underscoring the ongoing tension between public accountability and national security concerns.