During today’s questioning, Ludmiła Kozłowska of the Open Dialog Foundation disclosed that Moldovan services provided information from a secret Polish report from the Internal Security Agency. The revelation was reported by niezalezna.pl, highlighting new angles in the ongoing civil case filed by Kozłowska and Bartosz Kramek against Tomasz Sakiewicz, focusing on how the foundation is financed.
Interrogation of Ludmiła Kozłowska
The online deposition took place on Friday, with Kozłowska offering statements that contributed to the case. The coverage indicates the interview is tied to the lawsuit over funding for the Open Dialog Foundation, and Kozłowska faced questions from Sakiewicz that lasted several editions of the session. The proceedings are part of a broader public debate about the foundation’s financial sources and its political impact.
Kozłowska asserted that the material she was shown was based on secret opinions from the Internal Security Agency, which, according to her, originated unofficially from Moldovan sources that emerged from the Plahotniuk era. She described these materials as Moldovan forgeries, including a Moldovan report that was later challenged and denied by independent assessments.
We are reading the material, Kozłowska stated, indicating a sense of ongoing scrutiny and verification in the process.
Report provided by the Moldovan services
According to the publication, Kozłowska claimed that the Internal Security Agency had not released these documents to the public to date. She added that there is a demand for full disclosure of the information involved.
Kozłowska noted that she had not had the chance to review the secret ABW report personally, underscoring that the Polish court has previously described the available information as insufficient and not fully just. The remarks reflected a broader concern about access to sensitive materials within the legal framework.
Asked whether the secret report could render Kozłowska a threat to state security, she replied that the assessment would rest on the now released Moldovan material and on what is publicly known about Moldovan services. The points raised suggested a belief that the information foundation was influenced by contested sources from Kazakhstan and Moldova that had circulated as newsworthy content.
When Sakiewicz pressed whether the Moldovan report alone justified concerns about her role, Kozłowska responded that the Moldovan sources had presented the information in question and that this was the basis for the scrutiny being described.
The conversation then moved to whether the Moldovan services had shown the Polish ABW report, to which Kozłowska affirmed that the Moldovan materials had been the means of dissemination in the discussed context.
Further reading within the same coverage highlights that the topic remains politically charged, with ongoing public and media attention around the Open Dialog Foundation, its leadership, and the broader discourse on how funding sources influence political narratives. The developments are part of a larger conversation about transparency in civil society organizations and the media environment in Poland and neighboring regions.
Additional commentary on the situation emphasizes the persistence of scrutiny, with various outlets continuing to report on the dynamics between political actors, civil society, and state institutions. The discourse surrounding these events is ongoing and remains a focal point in European political journalism.