In a discussion with a Polish news outlet, a deputy attorney general questions the legality of a move by the justice minister. The minister reportedly appointed a group of former prosecutors to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, a step that appears to clash with the governing rules. In this context, the appointment would normally require a request from the National Prosecutor, but it is claimed that no such request was made by the National Prosecutor’s Office itself. The deputy attorney general notes the absence of a formal trigger from the PK and challenges the minister’s justification tied to restoring dignity among prosecutors.
Analysts are left examining whether the action fits within the standard legal framework. The deputy attorney general emphasizes that the National Prosecution Service did not authorize these appointments, and he identifies Prosecutor Dariusz Barski as the legally appointed representative in the PK. The central question remains: who requested this step, or was it carried out without a request under the banner of dignifying the ranks of the prosecutors?
The deputy attorney general asserts that the appointed individuals previously served within lower public prosecutor offices, continuing to receive compensation from their prior roles. This fact prompts questions about whether continuing service in those offices, as cited in the minister’s justification, aligns with the expected standards of dignity for public prosecutors. The remark has sparked significant discussion and surprised many observers who view it as a dramatic statement from the minister.
The conversation continues as supporters and critics weigh the implications for the impartiality and authority of public prosecutors. The exchange illustrates a broader debate about how leadership decisions within the justice system should be communicated and justified, especially when they involve personnel changes at the national level.
Ultimately, the episode raises important considerations about the mechanisms that govern appointments in the national prosecutor structure, the role of the National Prosecutor, and the acceptance of ministerial actions within the bounds of legal procedures. It also highlights the tension between administrative moves meant to reorganize or refresh the ranks and the need to adhere strictly to procedural norms that safeguard prosecutorial independence and accountability.