Marcin Matczak, a lawyer not aligned with Law and Justice, faced online hostility from supporters of the Tusk-led coalition after he urged Attorney General Adam Bodnar to respond to the president’s request to suspend the sentences of MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. Roman Giertych joined the controversy by eventually blocking the lawyer on X, highlighting how fierce the debate became around pardons and political accountability.
Pardon procedure
On January 11, President Andrzej Duda announced that he had opened pardon proceedings for Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik at the request of their spouses. The president stated that the process would proceed in a presidential mode and asked Attorney General Bodnar to suspend the execution of the sentences and to release the prisoners for the duration of the pardon process.
The two lawmakers staged a hunger protest. As revealed by Jarosław Sellin on wPolsce.pl during an appearance at the Radom Remand Center with MP Jerzy Połaczek, Kamiński appeared to be in good mental condition, though the physical effects of the hunger strike were already visible.
READ ALSO:
– ONLY HERE. Sellin explains the background of the Radom detention center intervention: the visible effects of Kamiński’s hunger protest
– The Constitution’s clemency provisions do not suffice for him. Deputy Head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration notes that the state police have no legal grounds to suspend sentence execution
— Symbolic presence. A figure named “Kuba” visited Radom in 1976 to support families of beaten and detained people; today that support is extended to Kamiński’s family
Matczak vs. Giertych
The president’s action found support in Marcin Matczak, a lawyer who did not stand with PiS. He urged Adam Bodnar, in a post on social media and on TVN24, to release Kamiński and Wąsik from serving their sentences during the pardon proceedings.
He made a straightforward appeal to Bodnar to respond to the president’s request and to temper rising emotions. MATczak argued that the public interest should guide any decision in this matter, and that the government’s steps deserved a measured, calm response.
– Matczak stated this in a Twitter post.
The stance taken by Matczak drew sharp criticism from Giertych, a lawyer known for handling high-profile cases involving Tusk’s circle. Giertych, who joined the Civic Coalition ranks, paid close attention to Matczak. He asserted that his client had spent sixteen years seeking Kamiński and Wąsik’s imprisonment and voiced concern over the broader implications for justice and accountability.
He argued that the affected party had paid a high price over the years and questioned whether rights could be restored without fair consideration of those harmed by the alleged offenses. He asked whether the law should serve citizens or politicians in this context.
– Giertych challenged Matczak.
Matczak countered that Giertych’s client had sought to see Wąsik and Kamiński convicted, which, in his view, explained the ensuing dispute. He stressed that neither the two MPs nor the public could control how the president exercises pardoning powers, and that Article 568, which allows release during pardon procedures, should be weighed against the broader public interest.
– Matczak emphasized.
Giertych responded that the public interest requires citizens to know they are equal before the law. He warned that pardoning individuals simply because they are connected to the president would undermine that principle.
– Giertych.
Matczak replied that the president’s pardoning power is defined by the constitution and should be interpreted within its framework, not through political pressure. He cautioned against basing discourse on personal opinions while resisting well-founded legal arguments.
– Matczak.
Giertych then said he would block Matczak and urged netizens to do the same until an apology was offered. He argued that Matczak had labeled him unfairly for holding a different view on accountability and the role of the presidency in pardons.
– Giertych.
A remark from Matczak noted a satirical line about public figures and democracy, underscoring the importance of civil debate in a healthy political culture. The exchange reflected deeper tensions between individual rights, presidential authority, and the public’s sense of justice.
READ ALSO:
– Controversy over Matczak’s remarks; Bodnar was urged to respond regarding Wąsik and Kamiński. The phrase about a “smiling Poland” became a focal point
Summary notes and public discourse around these events were widely discussed in media circles and political commentary at the time of publication, illustrating the fault lines between legal interpretations of clemency and political expediency. This account emphasizes how the pardon process sits at the intersection of constitutional authority, human rights, and the politics of accountability. It remains a live topic in ongoing debates about the balance between mercy and the rule of law.