The imputed immunity stance for MP Marcin Romanowski sparked a heated exchange on social media, with Sebastian Kaleta asserting that the Prosecutor’s Office did not order a ruling on immunity. He claimed the conclusions emerged at the explicit political request of Arkadiusz Myrcha, provoking questions about who directed the process and why. Kaleta’s post emphasized that the alleged opinions were produced in a political climate rather than as an independent, prosecutorial assessment.
During the arrest of MP Marcin Romanowski, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that two opinions existed showing that the immunity of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, including input from Professor Ireneusz Kamiński, did not apply in this case. Kaleta outlined this narrative in a series of posts, raising doubts about the origin of those opinions and who authorized their generation.
Today, during a parliamentary inquiry at the Ministry of Justice, new details emerged. It was claimed that the opinions were not drafted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, nor requested by it. Instead, they were commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and prepared for its purposes, with Arkadiusz Myrcha involved on behalf of the ministry.
The Sovereign Poland politician described this sequence as evidence that political actors were shaping the legal process. He framed the event as a direct interference by political circles into prosecutorial procedures, suggesting that the ministry used internal opinions to justify actions against Romanowski that were politically motivated.
Kaleta also cited the broader context, noting that the matter involved more than a single opinion. He connected the episode to ongoing discussions about the Justice Fund and what he described as political influence over investigative steps. He argued that the materials used by the Prosecutor’s Office had their genesis in political initiative rather than in independent legal analysis.
He reiterated concerns about the procedural integrity of the case, insisting that the preparation of opinions under political guidance creates a dangerous precedent for prosecutorial independence. He warned that oversight from the ministry could skew the trajectory of investigations and potentially manipulate outcomes in favor of political objectives.
Manual review of the prosecution process
Kaleta pointed out that the political order from the Deputy Minister of Justice did not yield opinions that were fully clear or universally accepted. The two assessments were authored by Dr. Joanna Juchniewicz and Dr. Andrzej Jackiewicz. Kaleta noted that the conclusions reflected the authors’ own perspectives rather than concrete, supporting arguments. He suggested that the bulk of the text described the breadth of immunity rather than offering decisive justification for any specific outcome. He implied the writings appeared tailored to a preconceived thesis, aligning with the ministry’s political direction. Kaleta indicated that the full text of the opinions would be shared publicly to allow independent review.
He called for clarification on when the opinions were ordered, when they were delivered to the ministry, and what the cost entailed. He argued that directing an opinion for a political investigation points to a level of control over prosecutors by political actors, which, in his view, could be used to pursue political ends, including the alleged deprivation of liberty of MP Romanowski and actions against opposition figures.
Inevitable questions arose about the operational dynamics within the prosecution service and the extent to which political currents could influence investigative steps. Kaleta asserted that the ministry’s initiative had a tangible impact on the conduct of the case, raising concerns about legal procedures and fairness.
Questions for the Deputy Head of the Ministry of Justice
Bartosz Lewandowski, who represents MP Romanowski, commented on the information circulating about the role of the ministry in commissioning the opinions. He posed a direct line of inquiry to Arkadiusz Myrcha, asking when the deputy minister learned of a second immunity for the MP and why the advice was outsourced to a political body instead of staying within prosecutorial channels. He pressed for details on the selection of the researchers, the presence (or absence) of international law expertise among them, and whether signed, dated opinions or only drafts were produced.
Lewandowski framed the questions as essential to understanding the degree of political involvement in a matter that concerns parliamentary immunity and law enforcement actions. He urged transparency about the process and the motivations behind it, underscoring the need for independent validation of any legal opinions used to justify arrest or liberty restrictions.
There were also calls to review related updates, including ongoing discussions about temporary arrest procedures and the legal basis for claims of immunity in this context. The public discourse framed these issues as emblematic of broader tensions between judicial independence and political oversight in high-stakes investigations.
The ongoing debate reflected a larger narrative about accountability, the role of immunity in parliamentary functions, and the boundaries of ministerial influence over prosecutorial decisions. Observers watched for clarifications about the sequence of events, the sources of the opinions, and the alignment between legal standards and political strategies.
Source: wPolityce