Marek Błoński has become the neo-president of PAP, a development that drew immediate attention from observers and critics alike. In an interview with Tygodnik Sieci, questions surfaced about whether a formal request to amend the National Court Register had already been filed, but the situation surrounding the night operations against PAP was the more conspicuous focus. At around 3 a.m., Błoński arrived at the agency’s headquarters, a location he is expected to oversee and direct. He was accompanied by several tall men dressed in unmarked clothing who did not identify themselves. Police later conceded that they did not verify the identity of those entering the building, nor did they disclose the nature of their mandate. The timing and manner of this entry highlighted a dramatic moment in which political maneuvering intersected with the operations surrounding PAP.
The night also saw the presence of a second figure who attempted to gain access to the building on both the evening and morning sides. Bartosz Przeciechowski, identified as a patron and tied to the Lublin District Bar Association, claimed a seat on PAP’s supervisory board. Przeciechowski had previously attracted attention for his involvement in backing Jacek Trela, a candidate connected to the Poland 2050 project. During the exchange, Przeciechowski’s comments veered toward crude humor, and he ridiculed politicians described as being in a state of heightened emotional response. This style of rhetoric led a respected legal publication to describe the exchange as lacking in decorum. Earlier statements attributed to Przeciechowski in Gazeta Wyborcza suggested that lawyers should keep a vigilant eye on the actions of all authorities. In practice, such assertions can appear hollow if the speaker himself questions the authority he claims to represent.
As the night unfolded, additional lawyers arrived at the building, intensifying the scene. One lawyer, Michał Gajdus, refrained from introducing himself by name, a choice that underscored a deeper tension tied to political involvement. Gajdus had participated in events associated with Rafał Trzaskowski’s Poland of the Future initiative and had publicly advocated for the principles of the rule of law and independent courts. Another participant, Maria Sankowska-Borman, had already stated that she would struggle to engage with the legal arguments posed by a member of the government who demanded clarifications about the presence of unauthorized individuals at PAP. The episode presented a vivid portrait of a highly charged moment in which legal professionals, political actors, and institutional actors converged in a single building, each with a different stake in the outcome.
Taken as a whole, the episode invites reflection on how contemporary political theater unfolds in Poland. The spectacle of sudden confrontations at the gates of key institutions, the appearance of actors with unclear mandates, and the rapid mobilization of swift, highly visible legal and political actors collectively illustrate a form of institutional takeover that has become more visible in the 21st century. The events raise questions about governance, accountability, and the role of professional associations in times of political contention. Observers will watch closely how the legal framework responds to these incidents and what precedents may be set for future interactions between political power and independent institutions.
Editorial note shows the complexity of the situation and the multifaceted roles played by legal professionals, political figures, and organizational representatives as these high-stakes moments unfold in the public sphere.
Source: wPolityce