A high-profile legal dispute engulfed Polish politics when MEP Michał Szczerba faced a defamation lawsuit brought by Mateusz Morawiecki and Michał Kuczmierowski. The case centers on statements that suggested the two figures attempted to flee the country through the prosecutor’s office or that they enjoyed protection from figures tied to the prior government, an assertion the defendants dispute as unfounded and unsubstantiated.
According to a post on social media by Ordo Iuris lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski, the claim against KO MP Michał Szczerba was publicly announced as part of a broader strategy to address what his team described as personal infringements. The message warned that the legal action would seek apologies in various venues and a substantial monetary compensation to support a social cause, signaling the seriousness with which the plaintiffs view the alleged harm.
Lewandowski asserted that the information claiming that Morawiecki’s supporters fled abroad and that Michał Kuczmierowski avoided interrogations was incorrect. He urged readers to review the formal documents now filed with the District Court in Warsaw, underscoring the court process as the proper avenue to resolve the dispute.
The lawyer also noted that civil liability could extend to further remarks about Kuczmierowski allegedly avoiding inquiries related to the conduct of Morawiecki, Dworczyk, and others who had influence within state institutions. The public exchange promised a courtroom confrontation to scrutinize the competing narratives surrounding political accountability.
The core allegations from Szczerba
The contested remarks by Michał Szczerba were delivered during an interview on RMF FM on August 9, forming the basis for the legal action. In that broadcast, he touched on the role and operations of the State Agency for Strategic Reserves (RSB). The discussion touched on arrests within the agency and suggested that individuals associated with Morawiecki had left the country, paralleling claims about the director of the National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) who allegedly fled after an inspection by another politician and did not appear before prosecutors. The remarks also named Michał Kuczmierowski, the RSB president, claiming he was in political exile within a Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, allegedly evading legal scrutiny and undermining investigations into alleged connections with high-level figures. These assertions were presented as part of a broader critique of governance and integrity within state institutions.
Following the interview, supporters of the ruling party argued that such statements crossed lines and warranted legal review, arguing that they could undermine confidence in public institutions and mislead the public about ongoing investigations.
Response from the party camp
PiS MP Piotr Müller reacted on social media, saying that a specialized team of lawyers would be formed to examine what he termed as misinformation propagated by Civic Platform politicians. The stated goal was to compel Platform politicians to acknowledge the inaccuracies and face consequences for spreading falsehoods, especially in public forums where misinformation can quickly gain traction.
In his own words, Müller emphasized that there was no license to propagate falsehoods with impunity, signaling a willingness to pursue legal remedies to curb what his faction characterizes as deliberate deception in political discourse.
As the dispute unfolded, readers were directed to additional statements that had been circulating in response to the incident. These included critics’ replies to Szczerba and supporters’ counterpoints, highlighting the charged atmosphere surrounding political rhetoric and the legal boundaries of accountability in public commentary. The exchange illustrated how accusations in the political arena can immediately trigger legal scrutiny and public debate about the responsibilities of elected representatives and public figures in communicating about ongoing investigations.
Source references reflect reporting from wPolityce and related parliamentary commentary, with readers encouraged to consider the broader context of the legal process and the competing narratives at play in this dispute. [citation: wPolityce]