Confrontation at the committee
Two former Foreign Ministry officials, Jakub Osajda and Mateusz Pali, faced the parliamentary investigative committee for nearly four hours as witnesses in the visa scandal case. The committee chairman, Marek Sowa, stated after the session that the witnesses will be evaluated to establish their precise roles within the overall process.
The hearing brought before the commission Osajda, who previously directed the Legal and Compliance Management Office at the Foreign Ministry, and Pali, who led the political cabinet for the then minister Zbigniew Rau. At the outset, Sowa read lengthy statements from both witnesses, noting that Osajda had testified in March and Pali in July.
Osajda asserted that the United Right coalition had spent months trying to conceal the visa scandal and keep it out of public discussion. He claimed that he found himself pulled into political calculations at the highest levels and that PiS sought to prevent the scandal from overshadowing an election campaign. He also described pressure after his dismissal on September 15, 2023, saying Pali repeatedly urged him and his pregnant wife to avoid the media and even threatened him with damage. Osajda added that the dismissal decision reportedly came from a PiS election staff member at the party headquarters, a detail he learned from Pali.
Manipulated reality
Pali responded in July by denying threats toward Osajda and denying that the PiS election headquarters had a role in the dismissal. He claimed Osajda’s testimony distorted the facts and contained falsehoods. He recounted a October 2023 meeting at the Foreign Ministry with Osajda, during which Osajda planned to sue the ministry over his dismissal and proposed a settlement. Pali testified that Osajda opened the meeting by presenting several packages of medicine, suggesting he was undergoing psychiatric treatment. Pali called for the committee to examine Osajda’s medical history to determine if medication could have influenced his testimony.
This point was highlighted as having evidentiary value by Pali and was emphasized again as the session progressed.
Both witnesses reaffirmed their prior statements to the investigative commission. Osajda rejected any personal psychiatric history, insisting he had never undergone mental health treatment and that the media scrutiny in September 2023 placed him under intense pressure.
The commission chair noted that Pali had withdrawn a request to review Osajda’s treatment history. In the course of the hearing, attention turned to the case involving Edgar Kobos, who served as an assistant to the deputy head of the Foreign Ministry. Pali testified that Osajda had attempted to arrange a meeting with Kobos in April 2023, but the meeting did not take place. Osajda countered that it was Pali who initiated the meeting and that the proposal involved presenting Ukrainian investment projects within Kobos’ sector of activity, agriculture.
Significant portions of the session focused on exchanged messages that both witnesses had to erase from their devices. Osajda testified that Pali repeatedly contacted him and his pregnant wife after his dismissal to deter them from talking to the media and that similar messages persisted around the time of the House of Representatives elections. He described remarks from PiS politicians as having caused reputational damage to others involved in the same circle.
Differing assessments of the situation
During the talks, Osajda described his relationship with Pali as friendly prior to the events of September 15. He recalled being informed by Pali that his name had first appeared in the media on September 1 and said that Pali suggested sending a draft correction to articles tying Osajda to the visa affair. He observed that the attempts to publish a correction faded once it became clear that higher-level guidelines would not trigger any official announcement or referral.
September 18 proved pivotal, with a message from Pali’s wife to Osajda’s wife warning him not to go to the media. Osajda testified that he considered the warning a likely threat. Pali contended that the correspondence between the spouses originated from Osajda and that the messages were more like tirades from Agnieszka Osajda, reflecting regret rather than intent to threaten. He maintained that his own statements were meant as advice, not coercion.
Discrepancies also appeared regarding a potential ambassadorial offer to Iceland. Pali claimed Osajda had proposed his wife for the post, which Osajda denied, and they differed on the specifics of the proposal. A representative for Osajda, Paweł Szrot, was questioned about current public or political office holdings, but the chair waived those questions. Osajda’s representative, Piotr Rogula, clarified that he did not hold a political office, and Sowa reminded the committee that Rogula had previously attended the hearing with Osajda in March.
In concluding the confrontation, Sowa urged the committee to evaluate the testimonies in light of earlier statements and supporting documents from other witnesses to determine the true roles of the two men within the broader process. He suggested that at least one witness had downplayed his involvement at the Foreign Ministry. The session ended with the decision to dismiss PiS MP Piotr Kaleta from the meeting after an apparent insult directed at MP Maria Janyska.
The discussion touched on several related items including reactions and actions within the ministry and the parliamentary body, underscoring the ongoing nature of the visa investigation. The events reflect a tense interplay between political accountability and administrative outcomes as the committee continues its inquiry. The overall aim remains to reveal how various actors influenced the handling of the visa case and where responsibility lies for the ensuing political fallout.
Source: wPolityce