Before the Pegasus investigative committee was appointed, Paweł Kukiz reminded the chamber of PSL’s leadership and highlighted a recurring pattern. He noted that Kukiz’15 had three members in the previous term and that he was offered the chairmanship of a similarly scoped committee at that time. He argued that those who opposed him then did not press the point, accusing others of attempting to bury their own faults. He suggested this was a longstanding feature of the political system, one that would persist regardless of changes in personnel.
On Friday, the Sejm approved the members of the Pegasus investigation committee. The line-up included Marcin Bosacki, Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska, and Witold Zembaczyński from the Civic Coalition, Mariusz Gosek, Marcin Przydacz, Jacek Ozdoba, and Sebastian Łukaszewicz representing PiS, Paweł Śliz from Polska 2050-Trzeciej Droga, Tomasz Trela from the left, and Przemysław Wipler from the Confederation. Magdalena Sroka from PSL-Trzecia Droga was named chairperson of the committee.
The public was pointed to other items of interest: discussions about who would participate in the Pegasus research process, and questions about potential political retaliation against the committee, as well as statements about witness lists and anticipated testimonies.
“Then you yourself offered me the position of chairman.”
Before the vote on the committee’s composition, Kukiz addressed the Parliament from the podium. He filed communications with the Speaker, as well as with Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, asserting his stance on the process.
He said, in substance, that he did not wish to leave the chamber, yet he remained because of a colleague, Bosacki. He claimed he had never served in the Law and Justice government and urged colleagues to consider the record of Magdalena Sroka, who, in his view, had participated in the government. He framed this as a fundamental point of contention.
The deputy then shifted to a second issue, noting that during a prior session the Kukiz’15 group had appeared to lack enough members to properly nominate candidates.
He returned to the Prime Minister and other leaders, restating his view that Kukiz’15 had previously had three parliamentary members and that he had been offered the chair once before. He asserted that the same rules should apply to all, and that the accusations being traded were part of an ongoing pattern that did not serve the public interest.
“This is all nonsense,” he concluded, expressing frustration with what he saw as attempts to shame certain individuals and shield past misdeeds. He warned that the system would reproduce itself, generation after generation.
“I remind you, Prime Minister, and you know it.”
The Marshal of the Sejm prepared a response to Kukiz’s remarks, noting that the structure and membership of the committee raised a separate concern. He pointed out that, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, those who participate in broader parliamentary groups are represented in the inquiry framework, and that the current arrangement should reflect that scope.
He acknowledged that while he was not present at the inception of certain rules, he had reviewed the Commission of Inquiry Act. The act states clearly that membership in the Seniors Convention translates to representation in the research committee, whereas non-membership to the Convention should prompt a different allocation. This distinction, he indicated, was central to the ongoing debate.
Kukiz responded that this point mattered and he would continue to follow the process. He expressed understanding of the procedural constraints and signaled readiness to engage in the discussion further.
The discussion moved on with a brief exchange about how the governance lines were drawn and what role different factions would play as witnesses and participants. Kukiz then turned his attention to the government benches, most notably PSL’s leadership, reiterating his expectation that the process would be handled in a transparent and accountable manner.
Several MPs voiced their positions from the benches, emphasizing the need for fairness and adherence to the rules. The exchange highlighted how the Pegasus committee, as a political instrument, would be scrutinized from multiple angles as it proceeded with its inquiry.
In the end, the proceedings reflected a polarizing, yet routine, moment in parliamentary life where processes collide with protocol, party lines, and the ever-present question of accountability in public governance.