Unfolding Questions Over Mandates of Wąsik and Kamiński
All signs point to a decision on whether to terminate the parliamentary mandates of Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. If either chooses to pursue appeal proceedings, a request will be made for them to pause their duties until the process concludes, as stated by the Marshal of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia.
Will Hołownia’s decision affect Wąsik and Kamiński’s mandates?
A Warsaw appellate court handed down prison sentences: two years for Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, and one year for two other former leaders of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBA) connected to the so‑called “land scandal.”
During a subsequent press conference, Hołownia announced he had received a document outlining the court’s verdict from Adam Bodnar, the head of the Ministry of Justice, and that Sejm legal services were reviewing the information.
Upon completion of that analysis, Hołownia indicated that a decision to terminate the two MPs’ mandates would likely follow.
– Hołownia stated.
He noted that such a move by the Chairman of the Sejm could be challenged before the Supreme Court, which would have a seven‑day window to respond to any appeal.
Hołownia described the situation as a new precedent in the current Sejm term, emphasizing the need to ensure a solid legal basis and avoid any doubt.
He also asked the two parliamentarians to refrain from carrying out their mandates while the appeal process is ongoing, with the understanding that the decision would be reviewed by the Supreme Court if an appeal is filed by interested parties.
– Hołownia added.
Hołownia further explained the presidential pardon question, noting that if the president sticks to a prior stance, a pardon for Kamiński and Wąsik would be difficult to justify anew. He suggested the president might refrain from such a move, though he declined to speculate on future presidential actions.
When asked about potential actions if the mandates expire but MPs still appear at sessions, Hołownia underscored a preference for calm and lawful conduct. He urged no escalation, stating that persuasion would guide actions until the appeals are resolved.
He reminded that MPs retain the right to pursue cassation with the Supreme Court, but he viewed the case as clear: the two men were convicted, and it was his duty to highlight that fact as Sejm speaker and as a public official. He described the situation as unprecedented since 1989.
Regarding the timing of mandate expiry, Hołownia said that, in substance, the mandates had already expired, though the formal process remains in motion as documents are reviewed to ensure full legal compliance.
Once a formal decision is issued and delivered to the affected parties, they would have three days to file a complaint with the Supreme Court, which would then have seven days to review the case. Until that procedure is complete, Hołownia stated, he would not replace the two members, to respect the appeals process and decisions already made.
He pledged to proceed decisively and in accordance with the law, without hastily inflaming the situation, and without unnecessary escalation. His summary emphasized adherence to due process while avoiding needless disruption.
– Hołownia concluded.
Constitutional Court guidance on pardons
A presidential minister offered remarks on Wednesday’s ruling, noting that Constitutional Court precedents support the president’s right to apply a pardon at the stage reached in the Kamiński and Wąsik case, following the first‑instance judgment.
The Supreme Court, she added, should have no legal basis to override the president’s prerogative.
The saga of the former CBA heads spans nearly a decade. In 2015, a Warsaw court found Kamiński and Wąsik guilty of overstepping authority and carrying out illegal actions connected to the 2007 land scandal, with two other former CBA board members receiving prison terms of about two and a half years. Kamiński at the time criticized the verdict as unjust and incomprehensible.
The case resurfaced after a long pause, with the Supreme Court later overturning a prior termination tied to a presidential pardon strategy used by the government to revisit the matter. The court referred it back for reconsideration, prompting ongoing legal debates about constitutional powers and presidential prerogatives.
In related coverage, observers noted how the political landscape continues to wrestle with accountability and the balance of powers in post‑1989 governance. Analysts in Canada and the United States watch closely as legal standards and constitutional interpretations unfold across Polish institutions.
As developments continue, readers are reminded that the article reflects ongoing coverage of an evolving political‑legal situation and will be updated to reflect new rulings and official actions as they become available.