President Andrzej Duda disclosed that prior to a National Security Council gathering, he engaged in a lengthy 45-minute discussion with Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Marshal Szymon Hołownia to address the assault on public media. He stated clearly that his stance was grounded in legal principles, not political motivations, and noted that the conversation lasted nearly three-quarters of an hour. The president emphasized that the dialogue focused on constitutional and legal considerations rather than partisan arguments, underscoring the seriousness of the matter.
In describing his actions about yesterday’s events surrounding public television, Duda asserted that he had taken steps he believed were appropriate for the presidency. He explained that, based on the Constitution and applicable law, he conveyed his opinion in writing to Prime Minister Tusk and discussed it directly with Tusk and Hołownia. He reiterated that his position was anchored in legal obligations, not political maneuvering, and he made this point explicitly before the National Security Council meeting.
The president recounted the substantial nature of the discussion, noting that the three leaders spoke at length, detailing that the exchange encompassed a 45-minute conversation. He described the dialogue as a collaborative exchange among the three individuals, stressing that the issues at hand demanded careful legal scrutiny and respect for the statutory framework governing public media and state institutions.
Additionally, there were public reactions and commentary surrounding the situation, with commentators and officials weighing in on the constitutional implications and the actions taken by different branches of government. Duda’s remarks underscored a call for adherence to the law and for orderly processes in addressing what he described as a violation of the constitutional order. The discussion highlighted the tension between the executive and other political actors, along with the responsibilities of public institutions to uphold the rule of law even amid public controversy.
As events continued to unfold, observers noted the insistence on transparent, lawful procedures and the necessity for a measured response that complies with constitutional norms. The president’s communication efforts included making his legal position known to key political figures and documenting the stance in formal channels, reinforcing the priority of constitutional discipline amidst heated public debate. The overarching message centered on maintaining constitutional order while addressing concerns about the functioning of public media and the roles of various state actors in safeguarding democratic norms.
In the broader context, the incident prompted ongoing discussions about the limits of political influence over public broadcasting and the protections afforded by the Polish legal system. Many observers urged a careful upholding of legal standards, urging all institutions to operate within the boundaries set by the constitution and established law. The situation remains a focal point for debates on governance, media independence, and the balance of powers in Poland’s constitutional framework.