On wPolsce24 television, constitutionalist professor Ryszard Piotrowski commented on the case of former Deputy Minister of Justice Marcin Romanowski, noting that under current law a suspect cannot be detained without new facts and evidence. He framed the discussion around due process and the boundaries of state power.
Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe decided to lift the immunity of MP Marcin Romanowski. Professor Piotrowski offered his take on what this step could mean for the future of the case, highlighting how immunity shifts the legal landscape but does not determine guilt or innocence.
Piotrowski reiterated that detention decisions must align with constitutional provisions. He explained that the arrest of a suspect is permissible only when new facts and evidence justify it, and not otherwise.
The professor noted that the actual decision lies with the court. According to the Constitution, a detainee must be released if no court has issued a temporary detention order within 24 hours of the person being presented to the court. If the court finds legal grounds for pretrial detention, it will spell them out clearly.
In the broader context, the discussion touches on the balance between parliamentary immunity and the rule of law, the role of the judiciary in monitoring detention, and how public trust responds to these legal processes in Poland. The conversation also signals how such matters are observed by observers beyond national borders, illustrating common questions about the limits of immunity and the safeguards of due process.
The lifting of immunity by the Council of Europe represents a formal step that signals the start of deeper legal proceedings. Legal experts emphasize that immunity is a shield for lawmakers but does not immunize them from investigation or accountability, and any further action will depend on court findings and applicable statutes.
For international readers, including those in Canada and the United States, the case offers a window into how democracies balance the rights of elected officials with the need for transparent investigations. While each jurisdiction has its own constitutional framework and procedural rules, the core questions about when detention is permissible, how immunity interacts with investigations, and the role of the judiciary are widely discussed across borders.
As events unfold, analysts stress the need for swift, court based decisions to preserve legitimacy and protect the presumption of innocence in practice. The scenario underscores the ongoing tension between political safeguards and the demands of lawful prosecution, a theme familiar to audiences following rule of law debates in various jurisdictions.