At a press conference, Minister Bodnar faced questions from a reporter affiliated with the wPolityce.pl portal. The minister spoke on several topics, including the conduct of Marshal Hołownia and the status of Tomasz Grodzki’s immunity in the justice system.
During the briefing at the Ministry of Justice, Marek Pyza, representing wPolityce.pl, wPolsce.pl television and the weekly magazine Sieci, addressed the minister with inquiries about ongoing events and legal questions.
One question focused on the behavior of Marshal Hołownia. He was criticized for going directly to a judge rather than using the standard interview channels, prompting a query about proper protocol and the expected panel of judges involved in the matter.
That question was posed by the journalist and sparked discussion about the appropriate path for influencing judicial appointments and the role of public officials in such actions.
The discussion also touched on the Grodzki case. Charges were filed recently, and the possibility of Senate action depends on the prosecutor’s motion which has not progressed for three weeks. The public prosecutor, who leads the office, cannot file charges or must file a complete indictment for the process to advance; these procedural hurdles were noted during the briefing.
A third topic concerned Bodnar’s remarks about the alleged illegal takeover of public media. In December, he commented that the country was restoring constitutionality and seeking a solid legal basis. The question asked whether that basis had been identified yet and how it relates to current media governance.
Bodnar’s answer
Bodnar began his reply by addressing the third question and suggested that the earlier statement had been taken out of context. He recalled a discussion on a radio program where a prominent legal scholar highlighted that the Companies Code and ownership rights provisions could justify certain regulatory decisions, which he cited as the legal foundation he meant.
Turning to the Grodzki matter, Bodnar acknowledged that some action had been taken but noted uncertainty about the exact status. He had read several press reports and did not feel confident about whether charges had been filed against the marshal at that moment.
The journalist Pyza responded to Bodnar’s remarks, asserting that there was no legal option to proceed with charges in the absence of a clear consensus among senators regarding waiver of immunity. Bodnar recalled that he could not remember a vote on this matter in the current Senate and stated his belief that it had not appeared on the agenda for voting by the Republic of Poland’s Senate.
In response, Pyza pressed for a clearer ministerial assessment of the situation, asking for a candid evaluation of the steps ahead. Bodnar emphasized that the public prosecutor’s office has the resources to pursue matters as needed, but he cannot influence ongoing criminal proceedings.
The exchange then returned to the Hołownia case. Bodnar stated that he did not judge personal behavior directly, but recalled that Marshal Hołownia, using his authority, reached out to the Chamber of Labor at the Supreme Court, and this is the basis for his understanding of the matter.
The editor of Sieci challenged the minister, noting that jurors are selected by lot and asking whether Bodnar believed Hołownia to be competent or otherwise. Bodnar clarified that the jurist in question, Judge Prusinowski, serves as president of the Chamber of Labor and Social Security at the Supreme Court and is responsible for decisions in the case.
The contemporary political discourse surrounding these issues continued to be reflected in related discussions and commentary from other media outlets. The broader context involves ongoing debates about the independence of the judiciary and the proper channels for addressing concerns about public media and immunity rules. References to these debates appear in contemporary political reporting from multiple outlets and are used to illustrate the evolving landscape of judicial and constitutional oversight. [Citation: wPolityce]
Additional context
The coverage underscores the friction between political actors and judicial institutions, highlighting questions about immunity, oversight, and the mechanisms that govern public media governance. The reporting indicates a pattern where officials deflect direct questions about procedural steps and focus on delineating legal foundations and institutional boundaries. This dialogue reflects ongoing tensions in the public sphere as lawmakers, administrators, and media compete to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions in real time. [Citation: wPolityce]