A newcomer to investigative committees asks to see who has been summoned most frequently, intending to guide new members on how to perform duties, a remark attributed to former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro during a press encounter in the Sejm.
Yesterday the Sejm debated draft resolutions concerning the establishment of investigative committees for Pegasus, for envelope elections, and for the so called visa scandal. The proposals were referred to the Legislative Commission for further work.
Minister Ziobro’s routine
When questioned by reporters in the Sejm about whether Sovereign Poland would participate in investigative commissions, the party leader and former justice minister replied that there would be numerous details for Poland, and described the situation as a circus, noting that even a circus can be part of politics.
According to his account, he has the most experience in this area, claiming to be a relative beginner when it comes to investigative committees. He suggested checking who has been called to these committees most often and expressed a willingness to share his experiences with new members who will be joining them.
He added that his career included a period when he faced non success in his removal from the office of minister, an outcome he attributed to political forces he named as Civic Platform.
He asserted that his experience would enable him to guide new participants in investigative committees and offer a practical lesson in how to carry out their duties, even noting that it could be engaging.
Asked whether he feared sessions before the investigative committee, he replied that those who enter with the aim of uncovering irregularities, when none exist, would experience stage fright.
He indicated that the moment they begin will become clear to everyone.
When the Pegasus Commission was discussed, he described the Pegasus system as one used by many democratic countries in Europe and beyond, including the United States and Israel. He explained that it provides legal oversight over users of instant messaging platforms. He also noted that criminals have shifted beyond analog phones and GSM networks to instant messengers, pointing out that traditional eavesdropping tools of some democratic states may no longer be effective, leading to concerns about a state losing its vigilance while criminals become bolder.
“Toothless State”
In his view, the Platform intends to remove certain instruments and render the state toothless. He argued that this would undermine the CBA and retaliate against the effective work of the agency in fighting corruption among those in power, including figures who are returning to influence.
He recalled a story about a person described as Mr. Donald Tusk’s close associate, a watchmaker named Sławomir Nowak, who he said benefited from CBA and Pegasus. Ziobro suggested that those in power are seeking revenge, though he asserted that such motives would be exposed in time.
Ziobro was also asked about the use of Pegasus to monitor Senator Krzysztof Brejza. The discussion then turned to broader questions about whether politicians can remain immune from scrutiny and whether they should be treated differently from ordinary citizens when it comes to the law.
The response emphasized that all citizens are equal under the law, including politicians who hold immunity and close ties to prominent figures. He reaffirmed his willingness to participate in the investigative process with a sense of responsibility.
On another note, a number of readers will find it useful to follow how the new parliamentary majority approaches investigative committees. Commentary associated with this topic has highlighted perceptions of theater versus substance in legislative actions, reflecting the tension between appearance and real outcomes in political oversight.
Additional voices in the conversation have described commissions of inquiry as potentially counterproductive, suggesting that their effect could be to convey the wrong impression about the political scene. Regardless of the stance, the discussion underscores a broader debate about accountability and the mechanisms used to address public concerns.
These developments show how investigative committees can shape public trust and influence the political narrative as the country navigates questions of transparency and governance.
Source: wPolityce