During a press conference in the Sejm, MEP Patryk Jaki underscored a commitment to defend democracy and the Polish state system, asserting that the true rule of law must prevail. He criticized Justice Minister Adam Bodnar for pushing a path that, in his view, bypasses the full legislative process and replaces the Constitution, Polish institutions, and law with non-legislative resolutions that do not constitute a lawful source of authority. Jaki emphasized that Poland operates as a democratic state governed by law, and there is a clear framework for how laws are adopted and what constitutes generally applicable law. He argued that the current government lineup led by the ruling party disregards these rules and relies on political maneuvering rather than proper constitutional procedures.
Jaki: Resolutions are not a source of law
According to Jaki, the Republic of Poland is a democracy with a defined legal framework that governs how legislation is created and applied. He contended that the current administration has shown disregard for these principles, attempting to substitute formal law with political resolutions. He pointed to constitutional guarantees, such as term limits for certain institutions, as essential checks that are being tested. The aim is to uphold democracy, the Polish state structure, and the genuine rule of law, he asserted.
— emphasizes Jaki.
Kaleta: This is a violation of the rule of law
Former Deputy Justice Minister Sebastian Kaleta highlighted concerns that Bodnar’s actions threaten the Polish Constitution. He questioned where the defenders of the rule of law were when such issues were raised previously and suggested that the current moves mirror attempts to concentrate power away from constitutional authority. Kaleta argued that resolutions issued by the Sejm or ministerial decisions only reflect the views of their issuers and cannot lawfully serve as sources of law. He described Bodnar’s approach as an attack on the rule of law and the judiciary, noting a perceived pattern of overreach in recent decisions. He also accused Bodnar of bypassing the legislature by issuing directives to judges and, in some cases, declaring that a simple letter may suffice while later proposing a regulatory framework to dictate judicial rulings. He questioned the legitimacy of repealing laws or constitutional provisions through administrative acts and urged scrutiny of the legal authorities that have long warned about constitutional violations.
— said Kaleta, adding that Bodnar had already issued multiple decisions in a short period that were not aligned with Polish law.
He further noted Bodnar’s stance on joining the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, suggesting that Poland’s cautious approach to reforms and the VAT crackdown had been a strategic choice. Kaleta described Bodnar as appearing eager to push prosecutors toward European-level governance, a move he saw as at odds with national sovereignty.
— remarked the Sovereign Poland MP, questioning the circumstances surrounding negotiations and the unilateral announcement of accession.
Bodnar, according to Kaleta, appeared quick to please Brussels and Berlin, casting him as a figure more aligned with EU expectations than with national leadership. The critique framed Bodnar as embodying a shift away from Poland’s constitutional traditions toward broader European Union preferences. Kaleta asserted ongoing daily scrutiny of Bodnar’s actions as emblematic of a constitutional shift that favors external oversight over national governance.
— stated Kaleta.
Woś: Excluding judges means disaster
Michał Woś, another former Deputy Justice Minister, warned that it is unusual for the leading jurist of the Republic to describe regulations and legal acts as direct violations of the Constitution. He highlighted a crucial point in Bodnar’s decree: during the era of the Polish People’s Republic, executive power did not show such distrust for the law in this explicit manner. The potential consequence, Woś argued, is the de facto exclusion of thousands of judges from trials through administrative changes, creating a massive imbalance in the judiciary. He cautioned that this would spell disaster for the system of justice.
— emphasizes Woś.
Woś argued that the dialogue he witnessed reflected a broader political calculus: years of talk about the rule of law had often ended in political contention. He suggested that for some, constitutional principles held little weight amid ongoing disputes, pointing to a perceived mismatch between stated commitments to the constitution and actual legal practice.
— added Woś.
In related commentary, various voices raised concerns about the trajectory of court reform, governance, and the independence of the judiciary under the evolving political landscape.
These discussions underscore a broader debate about the balance between national sovereignty and European-level governance, with critics arguing that rapid changes can undermine the rule of law and judicial independence. The dialogue continues as stakeholders examine the legal and constitutional implications of proposed changes and the mechanisms used to implement them.
WKT