Dariusz Barski, currently serving as a deputy prosecutor in Krakow, warned that the actions surrounding the announced competition for a National Prosecutor could threaten the legal standing of citizens, a danger he described as substantial and difficult to gauge. His concerns were voiced as a statement read aloud at a parliamentary press conference by Deputy Attorney General Robert Hernand and Michał Ostrowski, highlighting the tension between recent moves and existing legal norms.
Allegations were raised that by breaching provisions of the Public Prosecution Service Act, Adam Bodnar attempted to remove Barski from the office of National Prosecutor without prior presidential consent. The proceedings reportedly included appointing lawyer Jacek Bilewicz as acting PK, a role that some argue does not exist under Polish law. Claims have also circulated about plans to conduct a competition to select a new national prosecutor, featuring candidates such as Prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek, who is noted for political activity. Barski issued a formal statement on the matter, which was read by Prosecutor Michał Ostrowski, Deputy Prosecutor General, on behalf of the Public Prosecution Service.
In a broader assessment, observers suggested that the competition aimed at filling the National Prosecutor position, organized by a team connected to Attorney General Bodnar, lacks a sound legal basis and would not produce lawful outcomes.
– writes Barski. He further emphasized that his official role remains First Deputy of the State Police, i.e., the National Prosecutor.
According to Barski, the moves to remove him from the National Prosecutor’s office have no lawful justification. They are viewed as an attempt to bypass the Public Prosecution Service Act, which clearly states that the dismissal of the PK requires the written consent of the President of Poland.
– stresses Barski. The ongoing debate has been accompanied by commentary from Ostrowski and Ostrowsan, who criticized the idea of appointing a new National Prosecutor through a competitive process and then seeking formal legalization by the Prime Minister. The implication is that such steps would not alter the underlying situation and may amount to legal irregularities. The representative cast the scenario as a continuation of what he termed unlawful conduct, suggesting that replacing the head of the prosecution service through a contested process would not yield legitimate authorities or a clean legal framework.
– asserts Ostrowski, who noted that the peculiarity lies in the competition not being conducted within the Prime Minister’s office, the body charged with appointing the PK.
The dialogue around these events has also included responses from members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with deputies voicing strong reactions to the sequence of moves and questioning actions that appear to bypass established labor and procedural norms. A number of voices have called for explanations from Bodnar regarding access to facilities and related administrative decisions, arguing that such measures may conflict with workforce regulations.
The abandoned path of supposed resort to political or procedural shortcuts has been framed by Barski as a continuation of a pattern that undermines the integrity of legal processes. He argued that the actions described would not only fail to meet legal requirements but would also risk undermining public trust in the institutions responsible for prosecutorial independence and the application of the rule of law.
Barski pointed to a protective ruling previously issued by the Constitutional Tribunal on January 15, 2024, which ordered public authorities to refrain from any actions that could impede the Tribunal from exercising its rights and functions. The deputy prosecutor highlighted that the constitutional safeguard was still in force, reinforcing the position that any attempt to alter the structure of the National Prosecution Service warrants careful legal scrutiny and proper adherence to established protocols.
The concerns about the selection process were underscored by Barski, who warned that naming a candidate for the National Prosecutor through a competition organized by a body aligned with Bodnar could have uncertain implications for the legal status of citizens. He described the potential threats as difficult to quantify, but clear in their risk to the stability and predictability of public legal remedies.
In the subsequent assessments, the participants in the discussion emphasized that any attempt to formalize the appointment of a new National Prosecutor through a negotiated competition, and then to obtain approval from the Prime Minister, would not alter the fundamental legal framework. The consensus among these voices was that such actions would not lead to a legitimate or orderly state of affairs, and could be perceived as a move toward irregular governance within the prosecutorial system.
Observers urged a return to established legal channels, arguing that the proper procedure for changing the head of the prosecution service must involve the appropriate legal authorities and adhere to the Public Prosecution Service Act. The dialogue reflected a broader concern about maintaining the independence of prosecutors and protecting the integrity of the public legal order from political interference.
Source: wPolityce
Related posts:
Bodnar and the Prosecutor Crisis: Contradictions and Controversy in Poland Strategic Shifts in Poland’s Prosecution Office: Bodnar’s Oversight and Barski’s Status Deputy Attorney General Responds to Bodnar Controversy Bodnar, Barski, and the Public Prosecution Controversy in Poland {“title”:”Prosecutor Ostrowski defends the legal order amid disputes over leadership”} PG Deputies Resist Forced Leave Amid Government Change Ongoing controversy over the acting National Prosecutor and the rule of law Siemoniak backs Justice Ministry, Pegasus Inquiry, and presidential pardons Polish Prosecution Row: Legal Tensions Over Top Appointments Supreme Court Rulings, National Prosecutor Conflicts, and Bodnar Controversy Pressure and Power Plays in Poland’s Public Prosecution Office Presidential Remarks Shape the Status of the National Prosecutor