Deputy Attorney General Michał Ostrowski stated that he wrote to address what he described as being treated like a common criminal. He noted that a disciplinary decision arrived with instructions for him to undergo a body inspection, fingerprinting, psychiatric examinations, procedures involving the body, and collecting biological samples such as blood, hair, or secretions, including a swab from the buccal mucosa, and he commented on these measures as excessive.
Ostrowski announced that a decision to file disciplinary charges had been received at the end of February. He also indicated that the accompanying instructions were included at the same time and that, in his view, they did not align with the charges and should be withdrawn.
Clues that should arouse surprise
In late January, the Justice Department revealed that the department’s head, Adam Bodnar, had appointed a disciplinary spokesperson to handle the Ostrowski case from among candidates identified by Acting National Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz. The issue centers on questions regarding the powers of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. The ministry stated that another potential offense involved publicly challenging the authority of the Attorney General as the leading figure of the public prosecutor’s office.
Regarding the ongoing proceedings conducted by the ad hoc disciplinary ombudsman Andrzej Janecki, Ostrowski shared that in the final days of February he received a postal notice to file disciplinary charges. He also noted that the notice contained instructions that he found astonishing given the facts of the case.
– Ostrowski stated in a message, noting that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted in secret and that he cannot disclose details to the public.
There was a remark that the accusations concern actions taken in connection with the prosecutor’s office situation, which Ostrowski had communicated widely and transparently through the media.
– He added.
According to Ostrowski, carrying out these actions was his assigned duty as a prosecutor and he found no grounds for self-blame.
A conscious attempt at humiliation
However, Ostrowski insisted that the reason for his statement was not simply the filing of charges. He argued that he was being treated as a common criminal despite publicly expressed legal opinions and procedural steps, including related to the case of prosecutor Bogusława Zapaśnik. The decision to file a disciplinary charge was accompanied by instructions that required the suspect to undergo a body examination, fingerprinting, psychiatric assessments, bodily procedures, and the collection of biological samples, including blood, hair, body secretions, and a buccal mucosa swab.
– Ostrowski asserted.
There was a suggestion that such instructions in disciplinary proceedings are appropriate only when parallel criminal proceedings are underway and when the evidence demands such actions. He argued that his case did not fit that description.
The move by the ad hoc disciplinary prosecutor was described as a possible attempt to humiliate him, especially in light of statements that could be read as threats of criminal prosecution against prosecutors who defend the law. If that interpretation holds, such actions would seem more aligned with political tactics seen elsewhere than with the norms of the Republic of Poland.
– Ostrowski emphasized.
He affirmed his intention to defend his rights through the ongoing disciplinary process and urged the ad hoc disciplinary spokesman Andrzej Janecki to withdraw what he called a completely inadequate instruction. Ostrowski also anticipated a response from Attorney General Adam Bodnar, hoping it would reflect a commitment to human rights and democratic norms.
porridge/cat