Rzeczpospolita published a complete list of alleged illegal actions attributed to the prosecutor’s office in cases involving MP Romanowski, Fr. Olszewski, and officials from the Ministry of Justice. The article notes that after its release, the roster of what was described as lawlessness by Bondar supporters and related figures expanded to include illegal wiretapping and the secret recording of conversations used in the prosecutor’s interrogation records, according to statements from Marcin Romanowski.
The story also features remarks from lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski, who cites the same publication to highlight additional alleged abuses by the legal system against the Sovereign Poland MP. These allegations include illegal wiretapping and provocative actions that allegedly targeted the political figure.
The actions of the Polish Prosecutor’s Office in the case of MP Marcin Romanowski are presented as more than a dispute over immunity. The publication raises concerns about obtaining evidence without proper court authorization, despite rules that require such permission, according to Lewandowski.
The discussion centers on something of broad civic importance: the right to privacy in telephone communications and the use of provocation. These elements are said to have been involved before and during the investigation, implicating key individuals who are identified as perpetrators in materials connected to what is described as the Justice Fund. Courts in criminal cases take seriously violations of regulatory standards in these areas, and the practical viability of using evidence obtained through such methods is questioned, according to the report.
Lewandowski also offers technical arguments against the alleged illegal practices used against Romanowski, presenting a legal framework that questions the admissibility of such evidence in court.
The publication is said to discuss how the “watering down” of material obtained through questionable means could have influenced the course of the investigation. It is noted that Fr. Michał Olszewski and two officials faced temporary arrest, while prosecutors pressed for the arrest of MP Romanowski.
Unauthorized Actions
The lawyer grounds his critique in scholarly work on the integrity of the criminal process and constitutional guarantees. He cites legal scholars who argue that evidence produced as a result of provocations or other unlawful actions by non-institutional actors should not form the basis of factual findings in criminal proceedings. The argument emphasizes that state actors and private individuals alike must adhere to constitutional and international protections, and that allowing such practices would undermine the fairness of the process.
Questions are raised about the ways in which materials were handled and presented, with concerns about whether any procedural rules were violated in documenting the investigation. The aim is to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and safeguard civil rights against potential abuses.
The discussion extends to the method of shaping or diluting evidence, with commentary on how such processes could destabilize the investigation. It is noted that Fr. Michał Olszewski and two officials were briefly detained, and prosecutors sought the arrest of MP Romanowski as part of ongoing proceedings.
“Several Years in Prison”
Romanowski reacted to the revelations by arguing that the accusations against a group described as Bodnarists continued to mount and could potentially justify several years of imprisonment for those who allegedly violated the law. The narrative stresses perceived issues in the handling of sensitive cases, including claims of Dehumanizing treatment, unjustified arrests, and the selective exposure of evidence for political or media purposes. After the publication, the roster of alleged misdeeds by Bondar supporters and the broader organized network reportedly grew to include illegal wiretapping and covert recording of conversations used in interrogation records. Based on these disclosures, the MP suggested that the case could carry substantial prison terms for those involved in the misconduct. A social media caption echoed these concerns, urging accountability for abuses of power.
Those developments are summarized by Romanowski in public remarks, reflecting ongoing discourse about the balance between law enforcement actions and respect for legal safeguards.
Additional materials are referenced to broaden the picture of the situation. The conversation includes topics about alleged forced attempts to ignore European law and discussions about the legality of recorded conversations conducted during investigations. These items are presented as part of a wider debate about legal standards and political accountability.
The discussion points toward a broader call for scrutiny of investigative practices and for upholding due process protections in all prosecutions involved in this case. The tone remains assertive, stressing the need for transparency and strict adherence to legal norms, particularly in politically sensitive proceedings.
Note: The reporting collates reactions from several sources to illustrate the contested nature of the events and to highlight differing perspectives on how the law should be applied in cases touching high-profile figures and sensitive political contexts.