Across a system built on power, certain figures use their stated principles as leverage to pressure others. Yet their influence can be checked only when those responsible step away from power and stop taking money tied to their positions.
Justice Minister Adam Bodnar may think he is outsmarting opponents. Several Supreme Court judges share that sentiment, though the implications deserve closer look. Bodnar learned that if an election commission report from PiS is appealed to the National Electoral Commission, and if the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs finds the complaint valid, there would be no obligation to accept that ruling. Additionally, the December 13 coalition, its media allies, and supporters from various sectors could argue that a ruling by the Chamber equates to automatic acceptance of the rejected financial report by the National Electoral Commission.
Bodnar asserted that such a judgment might be flawed because questions arise about whether the Chamber is properly functioning as a court. He notes that this is not solely a matter of opinions from European courts, but also that three judges from this chamber have declined to judge certain cases due to concerns about its status.
Adam Bodnar is described as both a senator and the Minister of Justice, while Donald Tusk is identified as Prime Minister, and the December 13 coalition includes numerous deputy ministers. The contention is that since the electoral legitimacy expired in October 2023 due to a ruling by the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, questions about legality have been raised. If the Chamber is not a legitimate court, critics argue, the government could be questioned as having an illegal mandate, including Bodnar in both roles. Calls to dissolve the government, and also the Sejm and Senate, emerge from this line of thought. Some argue that those in power should return funds collected during their first parliamentary term, restore honor, and acknowledge interpretations that oppose unlawful financial gain.
If both houses of parliament were dissolved, there would still be questions about holding new elections under the current Supreme Court framework. The legitimacy of any new vote could, in theory, fall again to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. Critics worry that Bodnar and his allies might resume payments for a period, perhaps for years, while a large portion of the population remains under the government. Yet the idea remains that a reset would be akin to Groundhog Day. If Bodnar were truly principled, some suggest, he could declare himself illegal and forgo the money. The same institution, by status, cannot be legal at one moment and entirely illegal at another. The path forward, some insist, is for those in power to either align with the system or step aside and refrain from further statements that undermine its legitimacy.
Attention then returns to the three judges cited by Bodnar as evidence that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs is not a true court of law. These judges, Leszek Bosek, Grzegorz Żmij, and Paweł Księżak, are portrayed as staying true to the law by declining to hear cases in the chamber where they work, effectively choosing not to participate. They are described as working toward changes that would remove a lingering sense of ‘neo-judges’ from the system.
The narrative emphasizes that, prior to taking office at the Supreme Court, these judges swore an oath to the Republic and would not serve without it. They could have refused the oath, avoided roles, and rejected a salary, but they did not. They chose to continue in a chamber that some view as illegitimate, while money continued to flow into their accounts. The portrayal is that while they declined to issue rulings in the chamber, remuneration persisted. That depiction is offered as evidence that moral heroism is mixed with financial incentives. A similar figure is Jacek Widło of the Civil Chamber, who also refused to hear cases yet did not reject compensation in return for that stance.
All these individuals could be accused of using their principles to pressure colleagues morally, but the critics contend that real defeat comes only when they resign and stop receiving pay. Without such steps, the idea of heroism in the face of a compromised system remains a matter of perception, much like the ongoing existence of a government and its two legislative chambers that critics say operate under compromised foundations. The adage about money not buying everything is invoked to summarize this tension.