In Radom, a crowd gathered to witness a demonstration focused on the fate of political figures associated with the Law and Justice party. The event centered on Paweł Shefernaker, a member of parliament who represents Law and Justice in Koszalin, and who previously held roles within the interior and administration ministries. The proceedings highlighted concerns about the detention of colleagues, and the speaker reflected on years of collaboration with Maciej Wasik and Mariusz Kamiński. According to the speaker, the attendees are convinced that these individuals are patriots who have long fought for a stronger Polish future. He stressed the importance of communicating the truth about imprisoned politicians and presented three key pieces of evidence to support the claim that these are political prisoners and that the issue is political in nature, not merely criminal in appearance.
First, the speaker pointed to what he described as a draconian punishment imposed solely because the individuals are associated with the PiS political movement. He argued that such judgments do not typically arise in cases of this kind. He acknowledged that the men might have faced court proceedings, yet reminded the audience that the initial case was dropped and later reopened for political reasons, with later review by a higher court overturning many statements from the first-instance decision. Despite that, the outcome included a sentence of imprisonment that he believed did not align with standard judicial practice in similar situations.
He emphasized that if Kamiński and Wasik did not belong to Law and Justice, a comparable ruling would likely not exist. He framed the decision as a political judgment rather than a straightforward legal one, urging listeners to consider the broader context behind such verdicts.
The crowd responded with chants calling for the release of political prisoners, reaffirming their stance with voices raised in unison. The speaker continued the critique, underscoring the sense that the case diverged from established norms and that the legal process did not adequately reflect a fair or balanced approach.
The speaker then cited a second concern, noting that the 2015 presidential pardon issued by President Andrzej Duda had not been given full consideration in the ongoing proceedings. He recalled that, at that time, there was broad acceptance of presidential pardon as a legitimate tool in the procedure, a view widely taught in academic contexts. However, with the emergence of a case involving two members of Law and Justice, he argued, that understanding appeared to be challenged. He asserted that the pardon should have remained part of the discussion, suggesting that its exclusion from consideration rendered the outcome political in nature and framed the prisoners as political because the president involved is from the same party as the defendants.
Next, he presented a third piece of evidence: what he described as a targeted political manhunt to arrest the two politicians. He relayed conversations with many police officers who, he claimed, did not recall witnessing a comparable level of intensity in pursuit of a political figure. The speaker argued that the intensification of the arrest was aimed at sending a political message and demonstrating the detention on a specific day, rather than pursuing a straightforward criminal objective. He framed the entire situation as part of a broader political strategy designed to showcase a strong stance against certain political actors.
He urged the audience to view the matter as a political issue that involves three central points: the severity of the sentence, the oversight or neglect of the presidential pardon, and the orchestration of a political manhunt. He concluded that these factors together point to a political motive behind the actions and that the imprisoned individuals are being treated as political prisoners. He called on supporters to continue protesting until there is a release from custody, insisting that the case requires public scrutiny and accountability beyond the courtroom in order to resolve what he described as a political crisis.
Even as the weather grew colder, several hundred participants remained engaged in the demonstration, underscoring a strong willingness to lend weight to the concerns raised. The event concluded with a sense of solidarity among participants who believed that the case transcended individual personalities and reflected broader questions about how political power is exercised and contested in the country.
In the summary of events, the organizers highlighted three focal claims and asked the public to consider the broader implications. They contended that the sentence was unduly harsh for political figures, that the presidential pardon had not received due weight, and that a political motive underpinned the enforcement actions. The gathering underscored the perception that the proceedings involve political prisoners and that ongoing demonstrations were necessary to advocate for their release and for a transparent accounting of the legal process involved.
The dialogue continued as participants voiced their perspectives on justice, governance, and the role of the presidency in shaping how cases of this kind are interpreted and resolved. The protest in Radom became a focal point for discussions about political accountability and the balance between legal procedures and political realities in Poland today.