The former Polish Minister of Justice spoke to journalists after the events at his home, labeling the ABW’s actions as illegal and politically motivated. He asserted that the investigation was pursued to justify what he described as unlawful and bandit-like conduct by high-ranking officials. He emphasized that, as the owner of the residence where the search occurred, his rights were grossly violated in what he called an unlawful operation.
He addressed questions about reports that a spokesperson for the National Public Prosecution Service had suggested attempts to contact his relatives. He stated plainly that an owner should be contacted directly, and that the public prosecutor’s office had his telephone number. He added that his in-laws were among those searched, and his mother-in-law was queried about whether she possessed the house keys. He interpreted these steps as deliberate and as evidence of improper conduct within the prosecutorial process.
The former minister argued that no one had called him, a point he used to challenge the prosecutors and their justification of the actions as lawful. He described the episode as a political theater that sought to undermine the rule of law, arguing that it demonstrated the inadequacy of the governing leadership after a period of unrealized promises.
Asked what the household staff appeared to be searching for, he characterized the incident as a sign of despair connected to political rivalries. He suggested that those involved were aligned with state institutions and implied that the search carried a political purpose rather than a search for any real evidence.
The discussion progressed to a broader critique: the events, in his view, were part of a spectacle that underscored lawlessness and a public display of impotence by the ruling coalition after a lengthy period of unfulfilled commitments. He described the sequence as theatrical rather than as an orderly legal procedure.
He concluded by reiterating his belief that the narrative of the case amounted to an attempt to manipulate public perception and to present a story of wrongdoing where he insisted there was none. He framed the matter as a political confrontation that overshadowed the realities of his family life and put them at the center of a contentious national debate.