Jacek Sasin and the Postal Elections Inquiry
Former Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin agreed to appear before the Sejm investigative committee focused on postal voting during the 2020 elections. In a recent interview on a national Polish radio program, Sasin stated that he would attend without concern, claiming he has nothing on his conscience. He described the committee as a political maneuver aimed at judging PiS politicians for their role in conducting the elections, labeling the proceedings as largely pointless. The hearing was scheduled for January 23.
Jacek Sasin and the Commission: Context
A week before the new government was sworn in, the ruling coalition voted to establish a parliamentary investigative committee, a move supported by MPs from Law and Justice who argued they had nothing to hide. They contended that the commission’s findings could undermine the coalition opposing PiS.
Statements around the post-election inquiry raised questions about the sequence of events. Jarosław Gowin, who had opposed postal elections, had already testified. The next witness was announced to be Jacek Sasin, with his appearance set for January 23.
Sasin commented on a phone call and a request received by email. He confirmed the January 23 date for appearance before the postal election inquiry committee and affirmed his willingness to participate, insisting he had nothing to fear about his actions.
He added that the committee had been framed from the outset as a political evaluation of PiS figures involved in conducting the elections and that there was no substantive basis for the proceedings.
He noted that his participation would be straightforward, explaining that from the beginning the ruling majority had described the inquiry as a mechanism to judge PiS politicians involved in the electoral process, which he believed had no real purpose.
The Constitutional Deadlines and Powers
Sasin acknowledged that decisions regarding the elections were made within the powers defined by the government and the constitution. He recalled that under the Covid Act the authority to decide aspects of the election process rested with institutions such as Poczta Polska and PWPW, as well as with relevant ministers, including the Minister of State Assets and the Minister of the Interior. He emphasized that the prime minister held the ultimate authority for these decisions and that he personally did not possess the power to override those decisions.
According to Sasin, the constitution specified the date for the presidential election. The Marshal of the Sejm, Elżbieta Witek, announced the date, and he argued that there was no possibility of changing it without a constitutional amendment, in which the coalition lacked a sufficient majority.
The presidential elections were planned for May 10, 2020, amid the COVID-19 outbreak in Poland. The government initially proposed a post-only vote given the circumstances. Sasin, as Minister of State Assets, oversaw preparations for the postal ballots in line with the law enacted that year on special rules for holding presidential elections during the pandemic. Ultimately, the law did not take effect until May 9, and the elections were postponed. He reiterated that the constitution clearly defined the election date and that the chairman of the Sejm announced it without room for alteration absent a constitutional change.
The discussion also touched on Gowin’s second day of testimony, with references to past conversations and debates about who advocated for postal voting and who questioned its viability. Some participants recalled a marked opposition to the plan, while others defended its necessity under extraordinary circumstances.
As the proceedings continued, observers noted the ongoing back-and-forth about the origins of the postal voting method and the roles of different officials in the decision-making process. The dialogue illustrated the tension between procedural legality, political strategy, and public expectations during an unprecedented election period.
Gowin’s comments highlighted his position that the postal approach had its supporters and detractors, while others argued that the plan shaped the election’s outcome in ways that required careful scrutiny. The discourse reflected a broader contest over governance and accountability in a period of extraordinary public health and political pressures.
In closing remarks, the discussion encompassed the broader implications of the postal vote strategy, the constitutional safeguards governing election dates, and the responsibilities of ministers and lawmakers during a national crisis. The unfolding testimony illustrated how political actors defend their actions while facing parliamentary inquiry and public scrutiny.
Source: wPolityce