Defense Rights in a Polish Prosecution Case Under Scrutiny

The actions of the prosecution in attacking the suspect’s defense are described as a violation of constitutional rights. The case echoes past experiences of Father Michał Olszewski, but this time the moves appear aimed at depriving him of the ability to defend himself. Prosecutor Piotr Woźniak seems confident in the strategy, while observers credit the efforts of lawyer Krzysztof Wąsowski and Dr. Michał Skwarzyński for sustaining freedom for the defendant Sercanin. Attention now shifts to the attorney who may lose his power of attorney, raising questions about the motives behind the move. Critics see the Bodnarists behind the maneuver, while the Public Prosecution Service argues that the steps serve the suspects’ interests. The response from Wąsowski has been firm, portraying the measures as an indictment of Bodnar activists.

READ ALSO: ONLY WITH US. Questions linger about bail for the priest, and Dr. Skwarzyński notes that the prosecutor did not challenge the origin of the funds involved in the case.

The prosecutor Woźniak’s letter, obtained through the portal wPolityce.pl, is dated October 30 and recalls a Supreme Court ruling in Warsaw that involved Father Olszewski and Urszula Dubejko contacting other witnesses. The document also suggests that Woźniak has broad authority to determine who counts as a witness in these proceedings.

The ban also applies to the defense attorney and warns that continuing to represent suspects could lead to negative procedural consequences if contact with suspects occurs or if the defense rights are exercised unreliably, thereby hindering proper representation of clients.

Observers described the letter from Prosecutor Woźniak as extraordinary in tone and content.

The Public Prosecution Service set a seven day deadline for Wąsowski to respond, and sources indicate the reply was prepared promptly. The wPolityce.pl portal reported the document, which some see as a sharp reminder to Bodnar supporters about the limits of the defense. Wąsowski highlights a core rule early on in his reply to the prosecutor, underscoring the established cooperation between the defense and counsel.

Defense attorneys may not be examined as witnesses. In other words, a lawyer cannot serve as a witness in the same case in which he represents clients.

Wąsowski asserts that he has represented Father Olszewski since March 26, the day of the priest’s detention, emphasizing longstanding professional ties with the defendant.

From the start of the investigation both detainees were questioned in a way that allowed the defense to participate in proceedings, with prosecutors granting access for attorney visits and broad correspondence, a pattern that continued with no obvious obstacles in later stages.

Wąsowski emphasizes this point in his reply to the prosecutor, underscoring the established cooperation between him and the defense.

Wąsowski adds another argument, asking how the National Public Prosecution Service could refrain from questioning the defense attorney as a witness before the arrests of Father Olszewski and Urszula Dubejko. He suggests the move aims to remove the attorney from the case.

This conduct reinforces the view that the case centers not on obtaining crucial testimony but on sidelining the defense figure by withholding the capacity to act for both defendants, Urszula Dubejko and Father Michał Olszewski.

These observations appear in Wąsowski’s letter to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office.

An attempt to question the defense counsel as a witness surfaced through a summons dated April 11, setting a hearing for April 19. Within the allowed period, the attorney submitted a written statement asserting that he could not be questioned as a witness, citing legal provisions that protect defense communications.

Wąsowski notes that the district bar council’s dean had raised concerns about actions that could compromise the confidentiality of the defense.

In closing, the defense counsel described the prosecutor’s letter as an unprecedented and improper overreach, intruding on the constitutional right to defense for both clients, Urszula Dubejko and Father Michał Olszewski. He stated that the contents of the correspondence would be shared with the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, all defense lawyers, the dean of the district bar, the national bar council, and appropriate national and international bodies.

The defense lawyer’s closing remark underscores the seriousness of the dispute and signals the need for accountability in the proceedings.

The Olszewski case is widely viewed as a test of the Bodnar movement and its leadership. Critics see a pattern of reckless conduct, while supporters hope for accountability and justice. The defense relies on counsel like Wąsowski, whose role is deemed essential to pursuing fair outcomes in this turbulent chapter.

The surrounding commentary emphasizes the political dimensions of the dispute and the ongoing public debate.

Citation: wPolityce.