The debate over the Justice Ministry and the Attorney General’s roles in Poland
The decision to keep the same person in charge of both the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General continues to provoke strong opinions. Sebastian Kaleta, a deputy minister in the government led by Mateusz Morawiecki and a member of Sovereign Poland, expressed concern that the Public Prosecution Service could shift its focus toward ideological issues rather than prioritizing the most serious economic crimes and security threats. He spoke in an interview on the portal wPolityce.pl.
During the discussion, wPolityce.pl noted that Adam Bodnar had taken on the duties of both Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the new government. Kaleta was asked to respond to Donald Tusk’s assertion that this merger signals the end of an independent prosecutor’s office.
Kaleta characterized the move as a deliberate manipulation and a reversal of principle by the coalition parties. He argued that when they are not in power, they claim, democracy, the constitution, and the rule of law vanish. He described this stance as authoritarian, suggesting a binary view: either total opposition or total control.
Kaleta argued that Donald Tusk’s remarks had laid bare years of debate about the Public Prosecution Service’s independence, particularly the idea that the Minister of Justice should not influence or supervise its work. He implied that Tusk’s political concern with this issue had faded, admitting that it did not bother him personally.
According to Kaleta, the real question is who wields these functions. He noted a paradox: if Tusk is appointing Bodnar, he would claim to be non-partisan and apolitical, yet Kaleta contends Bodnar has long been active in opposition politics and is now part of the governing coalition. Kaleta pointed to what he called clear hypocrisy.
Historically, Zbigniew Ziobro, the Minister of Justice, could, in the past, serve as Attorney General as well. The period following the separation of these roles was marked by instability in accountability, with the prosecutor’s office facing significant challenges, including major scandals such as Amber Gold and the reprivatization affair. Kaleta suggests that maintaining the dual role in one person avoided some of these problems and that the system under the current government is a measured improvement.
Kaleta noted that Bodnar, as Attorney General, now carries parliamentary accountability for the Public Prosecution Service. He asserted that Tusk had exposed Bodnar’s hypocrisy through his statements.
Turning to reforms begun in 2015, Kaleta recalled the early years when no one was clearly responsible for the Public Prosecution Service. He claimed that the absence of accountability led to a decline in performance. He described the present legal arrangement as a balance: the Minister of Justice can issue general instructions to guide the service, while individual prosecutors retain significant independence. Kaleta emphasized that no institution can enjoy complete independence, and the system operates with institutional soundness on balance.
Kaleta warned that power, if misplaced, could turn good tools into risks. He asked how Bodnar should be judged within the framework of the two roles and suggested that Bodnar’s performance as Commissioner for Human Rights should temper expectations for his work as Attorney General. He criticized Bodnar for not supporting victims of reprivatization and warned that Bodnar might focus on ideological battles rather than priorities such as prosecuting serious economic crimes, addressing security threats, or protecting the reputation of border guards. He argued that Bodnar’s stance could lead the Public Prosecution Service to emphasize ideological concerns over urgent criminal justice needs and freedom of expression in ways that Kaleta characterized as overreach.
In closing, Kaleta drew attention to related discussions about the government’s approach to justice. He suggested that the European Commission’s recommendations and ongoing public discourse reflect broader questions about separating or combining the functions of the Justice Ministry and the Attorney General. The debate remains unsettled as political dynamics continue to unfold in Poland.
(Source: wPolityce)