Mec. Michał Skwarzyński, acting as part of the defense for Father Michał Olszewski, notes that not every suspect in this case receives the same level of access or regard from the Polish prosecutor’s office as a high‑profile intelligence figure like the Russian agent Rubcow. The priest, Father Michał Olszewski, remains among those who are not granted full visibility into the investigative files, and his defense team continues to face a persistent barrier: the prosecutor’s office has withheld access to substantial portions of the case materials that could be pivotal for building a complete defense.
READ ALSO: OUR INTERVIEW. Ostrowski on the Rubtsov scandal: “Chaos. The communication between the prosecutor’s office and the services was misleading.”
Although investigators have granted access to certain segments of the inquiry, the defense emphasizes that large swaths of documentary evidence remain sealed off. The arrangement effectively prevents the defense from reviewing the evidence that the state relies on to justify its actions, while the prosecution or the authorities overseeing the spy case retain control over the majority of the materials. This discrepancy in access underscores a broader concern about transparency and due process in matters involving espionage and national security. The defense asserts that the current practice contravenes established principles about how files should be shared with those charged with defending suspects, suggesting that the balance of power has tilted in favor of the state in ways that hamper meaningful courtroom scrutiny.
– admits attorney Dr. Michał Skwarzyński, who, together with attorney Krzysztof Wąsowski, represents Father Michał Olszewski
The rules, as described by the defense, are clear in theory: it is permissible to withhold files from a suspect in sensitive cases such as espionage. Yet the defense argues that withholding the same files from the defense is a fundamental violation of case law and a breach of the defendant’s rights. The lawyers report that they have not been shown the full file, only partial extracts, which limits their ability to mount an informed challenge to the allegations. The Rubtsov case is cited as a troubling precedent where the boundaries between intelligence work and judicial oversight appear blurred, raising questions about the proper channels for obtaining evidence in sensitive investigations. The defense, with over a decade of experience in human rights and oversight of intelligence powers, expresses shock at the prospect that a researcher or operative who has been identified through operational means might be given access to the materials involved in the ongoing inquiry. Such a state of affairs, they argue, constitutes a remarkable breach of justice and accountability for public authorities.
– he added.
There is a provocative implication in the defense’s framing: the spy was perhaps placed in a safer position within the state apparatus than Father Olszewski, even as the priest faces significant restrictions and potential repression. The remark points to a troubling dynamic in which the apparatus claimed to protect national security could, in practice, be acting in ways that disproportionately limit the rights of ordinary citizens who are under investigation. The sender of this concern underscores that the state’s repressive tools can be misapplied or misdirected, with the potential to silence dissent or impede legitimate defense strategies. The broader message is that the balance of power in such cases should be carefully scrutinized and that lawful access to evidence should be protected to maintain trust in the justice system.
In summary, the conversations and testimonies surrounding the case highlight a tension between national security concerns and the fundamental rights of those accused. The defense maintains that the current access regime undermines the integrity of the judicial process and calls for clearer standards, more consistent practice, and greater transparency in how investigative materials are distributed to the defense. This ongoing dispute continues to draw attention to the need for robust checks and balances when state power intersects with espionage investigations, ensuring that procedural fairness is preserved for all parties involved, and that the rights of citizens are not sidelined in the name of security.
— The implications of these developments extend beyond a single prosecution, prompting broader discussions about accountability in state institutions and the protections owed to individuals facing serious accusations within the modern security landscape.
Note: this account reflects reported statements and perspectives presented in public discussions surrounding the case.