Dariusz Korneluk has been moving through media channels claiming the title of national prosecutor, even though rulings by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court reject that designation. His later statements, widely shared on the pages of Rzeczpospolita and on neo-TVP Info, drew numerous responses. One notable reaction came from Przemysław Czarnek, a PiS member, who urged viewers to consider whether a public figure should appear on television and insist on a decree while the state is not under martial law.
Korneluk, chosen in what many observers describe as a strange competition after several institutions ruled he was not the national prosecutor, maintains his position. He argued that the law designates him as national prosecutor and that Dariusz Barski remains retired, framing this as the current legal reality and the stance of what he described as the so-called neo-judges.
Today, Korneluk asserted in an interview with Rzeczpospolita that, by law, he is the national prosecutor and that Barski is no longer in office. In a similar exchange with neo-TVP Info, he repeated that this legal reality is the Prime Minister’s decree.
Czarnek: Boy, why aren’t you ashamed?
Korneluk’s media tour, framed around a slogan he called a claim to the title of national prosecutor, stirred online conversations on platforms like X and YouTube. In response, Prof. Przemysław Czarnek offered a concise constitutional critique and reflected on Poland’s modern history to counter Korneluk’s narrative.
According to Czarnek, appearing on a television channel that was reportedly shut down to declare oneself a national prosecutor with a prime ministerial decree was an act lacking in restraint. He pressed the point that such a claim touches the dignity of the office and raises questions about the balance of power, especially when constitutional norms are at stake. He urged listeners to compare the proclaimed decree with what the Constitution actually permits.
The State Council, noted for having appointed some supporters to the Supreme Court, issued decrees that sparked discussion about the legitimacy of recent judicial appointments. Observers acknowledged that while legal norms exist, interpretation and consistency matter, and past actions should not undermine the rule of law. The conversation pointed to the tension between historical decisions and current standards in the justice system.
And now Korneluk insists that a decree exists. The question remains: where do decrees appear in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland? Czarnek, holding a copy of the Constitution, invited the audience to listen to discussions surrounding Korneluk and his proclaimed decrees, including remarks from PiS parliamentarian Dariusz Matecki.
“It takes talent to destroy the prosecutor’s office in such a short time.”
Korneluk’s interview with Rzeczpospolita drew a flood of responses on X, reflecting a broad debate about the Public Prosecution Service and its direction. Critics argued that Korneluk’s statements could be viewed as a challenge to the legitimacy of the service, highlighting disputes over disciplinary norms and the proper interpretation of the appointment process. They urged readers to consider international perspectives on judicial appointments and to review the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, including provisions related to the respect due to the presidency and the dignity of the prosecutorial office. Several commentators noted that while opinions differ, the law remains the framework within which such disputes must be resolved and that no international ruling has overturned established appointments. They urged readers to examine the balance between legal norms and public accountability and to evaluate the effect of rhetoric on trust in public institutions.
Associations like AdVocem joined the discussion, questioning why Korneluk’s content received attention and stressing the importance of settling questions through formal legal channels rather than sensational claims. They pointed to the September 27, 2024 ruling of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber as a key moment that ought to guide the status of the appointment and its formal recognition within the justice system.
Some observers offered pointed mockery, suggesting bold comparisons to well-known historical figures to illustrate the perceived boldness of Korneluk’s stance. Others commented on the rhetoric itself, noting that repeating such claims can undermine the seriousness of official institutions and the rule of law. A few public figures offered satirical takes to highlight the discrepancy between proclaimed authority and actual constitutional boundaries.
And so the discussion continued, with readers weighing the credibility of official decrees against what the Constitution allows and what the courts have determined. The dialogue reflected broader concerns about legitimacy, responsibility, and the duty of public figures to respect the legal framework that governs public offices.
Further voices questioned the posture of the would-be national prosecutor, emphasizing the need to distinguish between personal claims and lawful authority. The commentary emphasized that the path to resolving such disputes runs through proper legal processes and transparent decisions, rather than repeated declarations in the media. The dialogue remained focused on ensuring that the justice system adheres to established norms and that any challenge to appointments is subjected to thorough, lawful scrutiny.
In the end, commentators urged a calm, rules-based approach to the matter, reminding readers that the Constitution and the law provide the framework for any determination of official duties. The public discourse underscored the importance of upholding the integrity of public institutions, even in the face of provocative claims and heated political rhetoric.
yy/X