Małgorzata Wassermann appeared today as a guest on wPolsce.pl, signaling that if the PiS club proposes her as a candidate for one of the investigative committees, the proposal would be considered with full seriousness. The PiS MP stressed that her party would not be daunted by opposition rhetoric or pressure.
READ ALSO: https://wpolityce.pl/polityka/672598-ziobro-jestem-rutiarz-jezeli-chodzi-o-komisje-sledcze
The responsibilities of choosing which PiS MPs are eligible for different bodies rest with the party’s authorities. If such an offer arrives, Wassermann declared, it will be weighed with due attention. She highlighted the depth of expertise within the PiS roster, noting that there is no shortage of qualified individuals among its members.
“We will see how these committees are formed and how mandates are distributed; this is a crucial matter. If the Civic Platform and its coalition partners want to stage a performance for the committee’s work, they should consider whether serving on such a body remains meaningful, particularly when the parliamentary majority has broken standard procedures. Let’s wait and see,” she stated.
Wassermann went on to say that the current parliamentary majority poses ongoing pressure. The experience has been endured for eight years, and she believes the political reality is stuck. Her message was clear: that there is no fear and no intimidation will succeed. She also reminded listeners that holding certain individuals legally accountable has not been easy, and that after recent statements some interlocutors seem unsure about what they are talking about.
Nevertheless, certain signals do reach those in the majority. In the early stages, candidates for investigative committees included Roman Giertych and Krzysztof Brejza among others. Wassermann suggested that someone had checked the applicable regulations, which specify that anyone who is personally affected by a case under consideration by a committee cannot be a member of that same investigative panel. She also reminded that investigations are ongoing at the public prosecutor’s office regarding both gentlemen, making it difficult to justify their role as interrogators on the committee while they are also being called to testify elsewhere.
Wassermann’s remarks emphasize a broader theme: the strategic calculations involved in committee roles, the rules governing membership, and the implications of ongoing legal proceedings for those nominated to lead or participate in investigatory work. The discussion reflects a friction between a governing majority and the opposition, highlighting questions about transparency, procedural integrity, and the value of parliamentary oversight in a political climate described by its critics as resistant to reform.
The dialogue underscores the complexity of forming investigative bodies within a party system that includes rival coalitions and divergent perspectives on accountability. It also points to the delicate balance MPs must maintain between representing party interests and upholding parliamentary standards during times of controversy and public scrutiny.
Across these exchanges, the emphasis remains on the voters’ interest in clear processes, predictable rules, and accountable governance. The conversations about who should sit on investigative committees and under what conditions they should operate are not merely procedural debates; they touch the core of how parliamentary oversight is conducted and how credibility is maintained when investigations intersect with ongoing prosecutions and public life.
WB
Source: wPolityce