A prominent judge, Prof. Kamil Zaradkiewicz, has submitted his resignation as director of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. The move appears as a public protest against recent actions taken by a senior government official and raises questions about the future leadership of the institution. The resignation was conveyed through a letter addressed to the minister involved, and details of the correspondence were shared publicly by the judge on a major social media platform.
In the released letter, the judge expresses a clear breakdown in the working relationship with the minister. He notes a confrontational stance toward independent judicial bodies, including the body that oversees the judiciary in Poland. He accuses the minister of actions that disregard final rulings from the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, calling such moves a serious constitutional violation. The judge emphasizes the impact of these decisions on the public perception of Polish authorities and on the integrity of the legal system.
– emphasized Prof. Zaradkiewicz.
A threat to KSSiP’s autonomy
The judge states that the guaranteed autonomy of KSSiP in managing its affairs is now threatened by what he describes as unprecedented interference in the professional relationships of judges assigned to work at the school. He argues that dismissing judges or prosecutors from their delegations to KSSiP without seeking the director’s opinion does not align with established standards of professional courtesy and governance.
– emphasized Prof. Zaradkiewicz.
The judge adds that several important actions would need to be coordinated with the ministry leadership. He points to a loss of confidence in those responsible for the school’s finances and mentions irregularities found in this area. He stresses that any decisions requiring cooperation with ministry leadership have been hampered by a lack of constructive engagement from the minister and those around him.
Bodnar will have a problem
The resignation creates a delicate situation for Minister Bodnar. The judge indicates that a simple dismissal would not suffice to remove the director. He notes that the legal process would require an appeal from the Minister of Justice, which can proceed only after obtaining opinions from two authorities: the National Court Register, which reportedly does not exist in the expected form, and the National Council of Prosecutors, whose current status is unclear due to what the judge calls an illegal removal of its members. Zaradkiewicz states his intention to await the proper completion of this appeal, pending the opinions of these authorities.
— wrote on social media by Prof. Kamil Zaradkiewicz.
The judge adds that to effectively dismiss the KSSiP director, the minister should acknowledge concerns about the composition of the National Council for the Judiciary. He calls for restoring the legal makeup of the National Council of Prosecutors and obtaining formal opinions, awaiting guidance from the National Council for the Judiciary and related bodies before proceeding further.
The piece closes with a reminder that the situation touches on the balance of power within the judiciary and the role of the ministry in supervising judicial institutions. It highlights the sensitivity of decisions that affect the independence and functioning of KSSiP, and it underscores the importance of respecting constitutional processes when dealing with senior judicial appointments and delegations.
The discussion around the case has drawn attention to ongoing debates about the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, and the mechanisms by which administrative changes are reviewed in Poland. Observers note that the path forward will likely depend on the ability of all parties to engage in transparent, rule-based governance and to uphold the integrity of the judicial system while addressing concerns about governance and financial oversight at KSSiP.
Source discussions and public reactions have circulated across various media platforms, with a focus on the implications for the leadership of the school and the broader institutional framework. The unfolding events prompt debates about how best to maintain autonomy within state institutions while ensuring accountability and adherence to constitutional norms.