There are documented indications that political pressure may have influenced the judges of the Warsaw Mokotów District Court who handled the pre-trial detention in the case involving Marcin Romanowski. The existence of this influence appears in a letter written by one of the judges, in which he directly admits that such pressures were applied against him. The revelation highlights concerns about judicial independence and the integrity of the pre-trial process in high-profile political cases.
READ ALSO: Strong reports from the Lawyers Association for Poland! The vice-president of the Warsaw court had to resign under political pressure
Several observers note that there is a document pointing to a case worthy of closer scrutiny by the Investigative Committee. Judge Grzegorz Krysztofiuk, who served as Deputy President of Criminal Cases at the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court and oversaw political cases, reportedly resigned due to political pressure. MP Michał Woś publicly referenced this development, drawing attention to the possible links between political influence and judicial decision-making.
Woś also shared a letter attributed to Judge Krysztofiuk addressed to Adam Bodnar, the then-claimant to Justice. In that correspondence, Krysztofiuk stated that he would not complete his term because he could not fulfill his duties under the weight of political pressure. The message underscores the tension between judicial responsibilities and external pressures perceived by a sitting judge.
It is noted that Krysztofiuk previously held the role of vice-president for criminal cases at the Warsaw Mokotów District Court, the same court that issued the arrest decision against Marcin Romanowski. The connection between these events invites a broader discussion about how political considerations may intersect with prosecutorial and judicial workflows in cases touching on public figures and policy matters.
Analysts and legal observers insist that the matter requires a thorough review by the National Council for the Judiciary. The aim would be to establish who exerted any political pressure, how such pressure manifested, and in which cases it may have occurred. The absence of clear boundaries between political authority and judicial independence raises questions about safeguards and accountability within the justice system.
Commentators, including political figures, emphasize the need for independent verification and robust oversight to prevent any recurrence of such situations. The discussion centers on safeguarding the impartiality of courts and ensuring that decisions in sensitive cases remain free from external influence. The dialogue continues among lawmakers, legal professionals, and civil society about the mechanisms required to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
As investigations unfold, the issue remains a focal point for debates about legal ethics, constitutional safeguards, and the proper framework for handling cases that intersect politics and justice. Observers urge a careful, transparent examination by relevant authorities to clarify the extent of any pressure, identify responsible actors, and reinforce processes that protect judicial independence for the sake of the rule of law. [Source: wPolityce]