The post-election inquiry committee resumed its session after a break at about 4:30 p.m. During the session, the chair, MP Dariusz Joński, pressed a witness about a notable email thread. The exchange suggested that today’s witness, the former head of Prime Minister Michał Dworczyk’s Chancellery, may have been advised to coordinate with MP Paweł Jabłoński to obscure certain actions related to accountability.
When the committee returned, Joński posed an unexpected question to the witness.
Since new emails continue to arrive, he asked whether the witness knew Mr Paweł Jabłoński.
That name referred to the former deputy head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who now serves as a PiS member of Parliament and participates in the postal election inquiry committee.
“I know Mr Paweł Jabłoński. He is in this room,” replied the witness, Michał Dworczyk, with a hint of surprise and humor.
“Who is Mr Paweł Jabłoński?” the chair pressed.
“A member of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland,” the witness clarified.
The chair quotes the email
Joński then read aloud a specific email dated May 13, 2020, noting that it came directly from the Public Prosecution Service to Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki at 12:10 p.m. on that day, and not from a hacked or foreign source.
“This is the first email I am reading as Mr Mariusz Haładyj guides the Prime Minister on how to address risks tied to a decision,” Joński remarked, citing a message from Mariusz Haładyj of the Public Prosecution Service.
“That day, at noon, you replied from your gov.pl email, stating that the matter had been consulted yesterday with Paweł Jabłoński and Magdalena Przybysz,” Joński continued.
“Tomorrow there will be a recommendation on whether to end or repeal the ban. It would be good to close this matter by tomorrow. Your decision will be ready tomorrow morning,” Joński quoted, referring to the notes attributed to Michał.
“That’s me,” Dworczyk replied with a smile.
The chair then read Mateusz Morawiecki’s response aloud.
“Was it Paweł Jabłoński who advised you on withdrawing the decision?” Joński asked.
Dworczyk suggested that Jabłoński, then a minister and now a member of Parliament, could have been consulted on the decision as the electoral timing remained uncertain. He noted that the email appeared dated May 13, while the decision was still pending.
“I cannot recall such an exchange,” Dworczyk admitted. When Joński asked to see the printed messages, the witness replied that he trusted the chair’s assertion that the material came from a legal source, given the chair’s instruction to seize mailboxes tied to the Prime Minister’s Chancellery.
“So what are you interested in?” Dworczyk asked.
Am I being interrogated now?
Joński pressed whether Jabłoński confirmed consulting on the annulment of the decision with Dworczyk.
“Sir, am I being questioned by you at this moment?” Jabłoński responded with a touch of humor, noting his inability to recall such email exchanges.
As the proceedings continued, the chair reminded the committee that the Inquiries Act restricts participation to those who have been directly involved in matters under review and cannot sit on the commission.
The chair also criticized what he called a “pandemic of amnesia” among former government officials, arguing that questions about past advisory roles inevitably touch on the line between memory and responsibility.
Joński stated that he would consult advisers about whether Jabłoński could continue serving on the committee, given the potential conflicts and the dates of the emails in question.
Jabłoński drew attention to the timing of the correspondence, noting that if the events discussed occurred after May 10, they might fall outside the committee’s current remit. He added that many government figures involved at the time participated in the process, including the witness in question.
New emails may illuminate the conduct
Joński also posted a message on a social platform, describing the matter as sensational and suggesting new official emails between PiS politicians could shed light on who bore responsibility for the attempt to hold elections during a pandemic and the related mismanagement.
The exchange raised questions about the reach of the committee’s scope and the duration of its inquiry, prompting further scrutiny of how information has been handled and who has been consulted during this period.
Further remarks were made about the committee’s awareness of operational timelines, and whether the investigation had fully captured the complexity of the events surrounding the electoral process during a health crisis. Observers noted the ongoing debates about accountability and the legal processes involved in retrieving records from government offices. The discussion also highlighted the tension between transparency and cautious interpretation of archived communications.
For context, the material at issue relates to high-level discussions within the government and its administration during a period when electoral decisions intersected with public health concerns. The proceedings are being examined by the committee to determine whether proper procedures were followed and whether there was any attempt to influence or obscure accountability. Official records and testimonies continue to be scrutinized in the interest of public understanding and accountability, with attribution to the public reporting network that has covered the story extensively.
Further developments will be reported as the inquiry progresses, with emphasis on how newly surfaced emails may affect the committee’s assessment of responsibility and the legal implications for those involved.