In Poland, a political dispute centers on the filing of a parliamentary mandate and the actions of Monika Pawłowska. A party representative claimed that a document signed by Szymon Hołownia was removed, and today Pawłowska is described as attempting to occupy seats in the Sejm without proper authorization. Journalists were told that Pawłowska had taken over Mariusz Kamiński’s parliamentary mandate and, after a brief discussion with the Marshal, appeared to perceive herself as a member of the Law and Justice party.
Questions were raised about whether Pawłowska is a genuine Member of Parliament, or an unaffiliated figure. A professor expressed doubts that the new claimant would be recognized as a valid mandate, noting that this would amount to a 461st mandate, which could be a legal violation under Polish electoral law.
Olga Semeniuk-Patkowska asserted there was little chance Pawłowska could legally assume the mandate.
An unaffiliated person, not an MP
Speaking on Telewizja wPolsce, Semeniuk-Patkowska recalled that Pawłowska previously held extreme left‑wing views and, she argued, should not be considered for acceptance into the parliamentary ranks with a different platform.
As for the acceptance of the mandate, the claimant reportedly entered Marshal Hołownia’s office, took a piece of paper that Hołownia is said to have signed, and now seeks to sit on the Sejm benches, an act she described as illegal.
Observers noted that this situation involved a disputed mandate and that questions remained about its legitimacy. A commentator who spoke on the same program suggested that Pawłowska’s appointment did not have broad support and hinted that the move may be rejected by the party’s ranks. This viewpoint stressed that the Law and Justice group would likely not welcome her into its fold, leaving her as an unaffiliated figure. The commentator also remarked that Kamiński should still be considered the sole Member of Parliament in this context.
“I agree with the position outlined by a prominent party member and the party line: the Law and Justice club will not absorb Ms. Pawłowska,” one lawmaker asserted. “Therefore she would remain unaffiliated. It is difficult to claim that she is a Member of Parliament when Kamiński holds that status.”
Short-term cyclical interests
The discussion continued with caution, emphasizing that quick, politically driven moves often serve short-term goals and do not build lasting trust. The view expressed was that these actions might be driven by tactical considerations rather than a long-term commitment to the rule of law, and that the issue should be resolved within the framework of lawful procedure in time.
Commentators noted that such moves could complicate Kamiński’s ability to fulfill his mandate and might also affect other MPs whose roles have been affected by the episode. The emphasis remained on upholding the integrity of the parliamentary process and ensuring that any mandate changes adhere to legal standards.
Observers stressed the need for transparency about how mandates are assigned and whether party lines could accommodate or reject a member who appears to be entering the Sejm under contested terms. The broader point was that the parliamentary system relies on clear, lawful governance and a stable understanding of representation.
In discussing the situation, a prominent PiS member highlighted that the party had supported both Kamiński and another representative elected by the same association, asserting that the association’s support had been properly established for those individuals. The aim, as described, was to maintain defined boundaries between party affiliation and independent representation.
The conversation wrapped up with a reminder that the public should expect careful adherence to legal processes and that the parliament’s work must continue without distraction from unsettled disputes about who truly holds a seat. The televised discussion concluded with a call to watch ongoing coverage to understand how the matter would unfold under Polish law.
Source: wPolityce