Marcin Romanowski asserts that Zbigniew Ziobro trusted the processes and did not meddle — contrary to claims made by Giertych and Mraz — in the allocation of subsidies to non-governmental organizations. This is how the minister described the situation in a recent interview published in the weekly Do Rzeczy, where he defended the minister’s stance and the independence of decision-making within the administration responsible for grant distribution.
Romanowski’s remarks respond to persistent allegations that Ziobro interfered with the activities of the Justice Fund, a claim he characterizes as a myth perpetuated by some critics. He emphasizes that Ziobro’s priorities lay in legislative work, the functioning of the prosecution service, and the overall state of the judiciary. In his view, Ziobro actively reacted to external pressures from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Commission and oversaw reform initiatives that followed those reactions. Meanwhile, Romanowski notes that the Foundation and its supervision by the Fund were not central to the minister’s daily focus; instead, he personally oversaw related initiatives and granted his deputies substantial discretion. He stresses that Ziobro did not steer every subsidy decision tied to non-governmental organizations, reiterating that the minister trusted his team to handle these matters. This clarification comes with the acknowledgment that Ziobro did push forward certain projects, such as a program assisting traffic-accident victims in a coma, which is currently administered by the Budzik Clinic, and a support initiative for volunteer firefighters.
In Romanowski’s account, there were occasions when the outcomes of certain grant competitions provoked mixed reactions among ministers or officials. Nevertheless, he insists that Ziobro never interfered with the conduct or results of competitions that had already begun. The implication that Ziobro influenced specific proposals developed by competition committees and ultimately shaped the final decisions is presented as a deliberate misrepresentation. Romanowski asserts that such insinuations are unfounded and misleading, aiming to connect the minister with predetermined outcomes that did not reflect the actual decision-making process.
– he adds.
Comment on the minister’s involvement
When asked about the alleged direct handling of subsidies by the Minister of Justice, Romanowski offered a measured response. He described the minister as someone who received ideas from various quarters, including civil society organizations and political figures, and who was open to discussions about different initiatives. Like many others, he explains, Ziobro would meet with people to hear proposals, evaluate them, and, if they were viable within the Fund’s scope and the law, pass them along for further review. However, once the competition procedures had begun, the minister reportedly refrained from intervening in cases that could affect the outcomes. The essence of his stance is that intervention did not occur at the stage where results were being determined and finalized, thereby preserving the integrity of the competition process.
– we are reading.
It is noted that discussions around these matters often surface in political discourse, with several observers interpreting the minister’s involvement through a particular lens. This framing appears to be part of a broader debate about accountability and the balance between initiative-seeking and formal decision-making within grant programs. The dialogue surrounding these issues reflects ongoing tensions between executive oversight and autonomous management of grant funds. The discussion underscores a cautious approach to public funding decisions, ensuring that processes remain transparent and compliant with established procedures.
mly / “To the thing”
This account presents a perspective on how subsidies were discussed, evaluated, and ultimately allocated, highlighting the distinction between ideation and outcome, between consultation and control, and between leadership and delegation. It also points to the broader governance framework within which the Justice Fund operates, including the legal boundaries and administrative norms that shape grant administration. In summary, the statements propose a narrative in which Ziobro’s influence was selective and bounded, while the administration maintained independence in the grant process and final decisions were anchored in formal procedures rather than personal preferences.
In discussions of public accountability, supporters of the minister often stress the importance of allowing officials to explore a range of proposals without micromanagement, arguing that this fosters innovation while protecting procedures from arbitrary interference. Critics, conversely, may push for stricter oversight to ensure every decision is directly attributable to the minister. The balancing act between these viewpoints forms a central theme in the public debate surrounding subsidies and the governance of the Fund.