Judge Łukasz Piebiak, who previously served as Deputy Minister of Justice, spoke today with pointed and bitter remarks about what he described as a renewed offensive by what he called the judicial caste. He argued that this faction, leveraging its alliance with Donald Tusk, aims to dismantle key constitutional institutions and openly advocates for anarchy.
READ ALSO: “Rule of Law” or purges. The caste seeks payment for backing Tusk. What plan guides this new leadership?
In recent years the activities of Iustitia have shown something once unimaginable becoming routine: a public, political stride by judges themselves. When Krystian Markiewicz appears on the TVN24 set, declaring that they have awaited this moment for several years, Piebiak suggested the impression is not of judges but of political lackeys — a characterization he insisted was justified.
– said judge Łukasz Piebiak.
Crime and revenge?
Piebiak also commented on the call issued by members of the so‑called caste, arguing that it places unnecessary pressure on the President of the Republic of Poland and frames the move as a political manifesto rather than a legal collective statement from judges’ associations.
In Poland such speeches no longer surprise many observers, who note that this rhetoric has become part of the landscape. Piebiak recalled the infamous remark by judge Irena Kamińska, who declared a desire for revenge. Today, certain judges associated with Iustitia have openly spoken of political retaliation and urged politicians to penalize those who chose to work in a manner they did not approve of.
– observed judge Łukasz Piebiak.
From this perspective, the conduct of Iustitia is seen as pushing for a broader transformation of the legal order. Representatives have suggested that laws could be repealed through resolutions as a means to gain leverage over bodies such as the National Council of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Court. This stance has drawn sharp criticism, not only for its audacity but for the potential it holds to destabilize institutional checks and balances. Even beyond the stated goals, there is a concern about the rhetoric that can incite unrest or provoke unlawful actions. Various legal provisions are cited in discussions about the legitimacy and risks involved when calls for civil or political pressure threaten to cross into acts that could be construed as incitement.
There are judgments and interpretations of articles in the Criminal Code that are invoked in defense of these concerns. Debates focus on sections related to public incitement to harassment and, in some instances, actions that advocate or support the forceful removal of constitutional authorities. The overarching question remains whether such discourse, especially when projected onto popular media platforms, amounts to a dangerous prelude to real-world disruption or violent outcomes.
– noted judge Łukasz Piebiak.
A judge calling for crime? Could such a scenario be imagined, and broadcast on the largest national television networks?
– asked the former Deputy Minister of Justice.
In recent days, discussions of these developments have sparked broader public debate about the boundaries between judicial independence and political engagement. They have also raised questions about how the judiciary should respond when segments of the legal community are perceived to be aligning with partisan interests, and what duties officials bear when public statements touch on the functioning of constitutional authorities.
These events serve as a reminder that the tension between judicial autonomy and political accountability remains a critical issue in the Polish constitutional framework. Observers are watching closely how institutions will reaffirm their commitments to the rule of law while navigating the currents of opinion that surround them. The balance between lawful advocacy by judges and political rhetoric that could affect governance continues to be a focal point for legal scholars, policymakers, and citizens alike.
In this context, the role of transparency and measured discourse becomes essential. While the judiciary must speak out when principles are under threat, there is a need for careful articulation that avoids escalating conflicts or encouraging actions that could undermine public trust in legal institutions. The unfolding situation underscores the importance of upholding constitutional processes and ensuring that reform efforts proceed through lawful channels, with respect for the separation of powers and the integrity of judicial review.
Note: This summary reflects ongoing commentary on Polish judicial affairs and is presented here as a synthesis of public discussions reported in cited media coverage.