More than six months have passed since Fr. Michał Olszewski and two MS officials were detained. Detaining a person before guilt is established is not a routine step; it is reserved for exceptional circumstances when a normal trial cannot proceed. The case centers on allegations that the foundation connected with Olszewski did not meet the conditions of a competition organized by the Ministry of Justice during the era of Zbigniew Ziobro, and that the officials may have improperly directed the competition. The broader implications extend beyond a single investigation to questions about fair treatment, the presumption of innocence, and the proper balance between state interests and individual rights. Observers emphasize the need for transparent processes, timely decisions, and dignity for everyone involved, while the public watches how the system safeguards due process and accountability in practice.
Within the first 60 hours after the arrests, reports described actions that many interpret as coercive. Detainees faced isolation, intensified checks, cameras in cells, and lights kept on hourly. Such conditions have been described as distressing and have raised concerns about compliance with international human rights standards governing the humane treatment of detainees. Adam Bodnar, a prominent figure who previously served as the commissioner for human rights, voiced strong criticisms when similar measures were applied to individuals in high-profile cases. Today, public advocacy around the three detainees appears less vocal in some circles, yet observers warn that a smear campaign is being waged, portraying the detainees as corrupt even though preliminary investigations have not shown misappropriation of funds or material benefits. The scene remains deeply polarised, with arguments about both the necessity of security measures and the obligation to protect fundamental rights during investigations.
A letter circulating among respected public figures began with a call addressed to the citizens of Poland. The document, read by some with seriousness and by others with scepticism, urged a broad reflection on the fate of the three individuals and on the moral obligations of a society that values due process. The appeal acknowledged the profound divisions in the country and questioned whether universally trusted authorities still exist to guide public judgment. It suggested that, because the government and the justice ministry oversee prosecutors, decisive influence over the detainees rests with those institutions, and it urged thoughtful action to safeguard rights rather than let proceedings drift unchecked.
The appeal was directed to four authorities considered legitimate voices within the public discourse that currently supports the parliamentary majority. It argued that the state apparatus should ensure fair handling by prosecutors while allowing room for humane treatment and timely reviews. It called for careful scrutiny of detention decisions, openness to new information, and, if warranted, renewed investigations that respect the rights of everyone involved. In doing so, the authors emphasized that a robust system must protect the innocent, maintain public trust, and avoid turning detention into a coercive tool that serves political ends.
Editor Michnik
The piece presents Editor Adam Michnik as a veteran insider in the world of journalism and public life, suggesting that the easiest path is often to prosecute lesser-known individuals who may not attract international attention. It frames a duty to defend the vulnerable as a core moral obligation, noting that the concern is not about criminals or high-profile cases alone, but about people whose names and families deserve protection when they face hard times in detention. The text argues that the dignity of every person should never be sacrificed for expediency, recalling the principle that a human being should never be treated as a mere instrument in political contests. It highlights the tension between public expediency and the imperative to honor individual rights in difficult times, urging a more humane approach to the processes that shape such cases.
The article questions whether the described harassment could ever be justified within a healthy legal system and whether the idea of jurisprudence wavering should be entertained when lives and reputations hang in the balance. It calls for a courageous, cross-partisan examination of the situation, encouraging scholars to weigh in with thoughtful analysis. The suggestion is to look honestly at the faces of the three detainees and consider whether their rights have been respected while their guilt remains undetermined by any court. The piece urges that steps be taken to secure release from pre-trial detention where appropriate and to reopen investigations if new evidence warrants such action, all within a framework that preserves dignity and the integrity of the justice system.
The closing remarks offer respect and a quiet hope for practical assistance. The overall message remains a plea for fair treatment, accountability, and a reassertion of the principle that justice must be administered with humanity, even in challenging political times. The well-being of the detainees, their families, and the broader public confidence in legal institutions are the core concerns guiding this appeal.