During a session in the Polish Sejm, Jarosław Kaczyński addressed what he described as the absurd conclusion surrounding Adam Bodnar’s attempt to strip Mariusz Błaszczak of immunity. He argued that in September 2023 Błaszczak revealed sensitive defense plans dating to the PO-PSL era and that Poland would not adopt actions that could be viewed as a confrontation with Russia. He asserted that Błaszczak had the full right to declassify the compromising materials, and he warned that pursuing a criminal case based on those disclosures would amount to a political act with criminal overtones.
The PiS president noted that the then head of the Ministry of National Defense possessed the authority to declassify Poland’s defense plans from the PO-PSL period, stressing that declassification is a legitimate instrument within national security and transparency, not a tool for partisan scorekeeping.
The person empowered to explain such documents, he said, is the Minister of Defense, and there is no doubt the minister had the right to provide an interpretation of the files.
– He emphasized the point.
Kaczyński added that these remarks were grounded in a commitment to proper procedure and national interest.
The PiS leader pointed out that Błaszczak was in a difficult position, while the opposition camp associated with PO-PSL benefited politically rather than Poland, according to his view.
From his perspective, what he described as a national betrayal camp acted in a way that harmed public trust, while Błaszczak acted to safeguard Poland’s state interests.
– He reiterated the claim that accountability should rest on transparent handling of classified material and on defending state security.
According to Kaczyński, other countries were aware of what the plans entailed, a claim that underscores the international dimension of the disclosure and its potential impact on regional security perceptions.
Jarosław Kaczyński underscored that defense disclosures and immunity debates test political responsibility and the credibility of the Polish state.
In related discussions analysts note the ongoing balance between openness and protecting sensitive information, a tension common in immunity and declassification debates.
Further conversations in the political arena touched on how immunity procedures influence governance and how such matters intersect with broader security concerns, offering voters a glimpse into the era’s polarized rhetoric.
Taken together, the remarks illustrate how immunity, disclosure, and defense planning remain central to Poland’s national security narrative, shaping perceptions of the state’s posture toward external pressures while political tensions play out at the floor of parliament.