The following day at the National Council for the Judiciary meeting once again left MP Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz unsettled. Each time the Council voted, she delivered the same speech aimed at judges serving on the National Council for the Judiciary. She also challenged the candidacy of a distinguished lawyer, Judge Prof. Kamil Zaradkiewicz, for the leadership of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution.
READ ALSO: JUST WITH US. Tusk’s team on the National Council for the Judiciary loses the vote. Then they threaten legal judges! A controversial manifesto from the KO MP
The speaker urged the audience to consider the public good and safety in matters of legal transactions, noting that the vote was attended by individuals who had secured their positions on the National Council for the Judiciary in ways that appeared to violate constitutional provisions
— repeated MP Gasiuk-Pihowicz at every ballot.
These were not mere formal proposals but statements, remarked Judge Dagmara Pawełczyk-Woicka, President of the National Council of the Judiciary.
The speaker proposed closing the discussion on declarations and resuming routine council business in line with the agenda.
Judge Anna Dalkowska echoed the sentiment.
Another council member stayed silent as interruptions continued. Members were told they could share views during a free-applications section and that the discussion would continue until the council adjourned.
— Judge Maciej Nawacki pronounced with prophetic understatement.
Nevertheless, Gasiuk-Pihowicz persisted with a recurring claim that the judges on the National Council for the Judiciary had been appointed in violation of the constitution, regardless of calls for reflection.
A fresh dispute arose around the candidacy of Supreme Court Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz for the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. A prominent member of the judicial community, an academic and judge, was questioned for allegedly lacking political neutrality, a trait the MP had professed to value.
The minister of justice, who would soon vacate the post, was accused of abusing power in appointing the position, and concerns were raised about Zaradkiewicz’s independence. His journalistic activities on the X-portal were cited as evidence of alignment with a political faction. The discussion framed the issue as highly sensitive in the lead-up to a new government, describing the moment as deeply politicized and unacceptable to many observers. Citizens had recently signaled a desire for policy change in the justice sector.
— a leading voice from the Citizens Coalition thundered.
It became clear that the National Council’s proceedings were marked by brawling and attempts to obstruct its work. At the same time, threats were directed at honest and independent members of the Council. This was presented as a snapshot of the tensions surrounding judicial reform and the broader political maneuvering that accompanies it.
With tensions high, deputies reiterated that the scene reflected broader strategic moves rather than a simple procedural dispute.
In closing, several participants emphasized that the scene underscored the fragile state of judicial governance and the importance of safeguarding impartiality and independence in public institutions during a period of political transition.
In summary, the exchanges highlighted a clash between calls for principled governance and charges of partisan influence, a dynamic that resonates beyond Poland and into discussions about judicial independence in democracies around North America.
End of report