In the coming days, a review of files related to Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik will be prepared, with the authorities awaiting the president’s decision on any potential action regarding the pardon process in this case, as stated by the head of the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General. He indicated that the materials would be handed over, and the president would determine the next steps.
On December 20, 2023, a Warsaw court sentenced Kamiński and Wąsik to two years in prison. Earlier, police detained the two and they were subsequently remanded.
READ ALSO: An attack on PK. Bodnar is pursuing every avenue: Bilewicz is among the most seasoned prosecutors. It marks a moment of historical justice
Pardon procedure
On Thursday, President Andrzej Duda announced the launch of a pardon procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure for both convicts. On Friday, Bodnar confirmed receipt of the president’s letter and initiated clemency proceedings accordingly.
On Monday, Bodnar explained on TVN24 that he would review the files on Tuesday.
There are 38 volumes of public files and an additional 10 to 11 volumes of secret materials, which can be examined in a secure office setting.
– he stated.
By request of the President, and following such a request, the Attorney General is required to start clemency proceedings. The files have been requested and submitted to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Attorney General will state his position when reviewing them.
– Bodnar added.
When asked about the timeline, Bodnar replied that progress would be measured in days, not weeks.
This stance addresses the pardon process, not a full analysis of the entire case file. The intention is to hand over the files with the Attorney General’s position, after which the president will decide the next step.
– Bodnar concluded.
President Duda has also asked the Attorney General to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the two men from custody for the duration of the pardon proceedings.
Suspending the sentence is a different action from initiating clemency proceedings. The president’s request implies a temporary pause in serving the sentence.
– the Justice Minister noted, referencing the president’s call.
Minister’s perspective
As Bodnar explained, a commentator on the Code of Criminal Procedure suggested that a pause in the sentence could be possible if there is a reasonable expectation that a pardon may occur.
He expressed reservations about whether the president intends to complete the whole procedure.
He added: “Imagine a scenario where I decide to suspend the sentence, the pardon procedure continues, and the president extends the process. It could then be harder to end the interruption in the execution of the sentence.”
The president retains the power of pardon. He does not require the attorney general for action. If he chooses, a pardon could be granted imminently.
– reiterated the justice official.
Historical proceedings trace back to 2010 when Kamiński and Wąsik faced charges in Rzeszów for exceeding powers and related offenses within the CBA, including alleged forged documents and the improper handling of certificates. Prosecutors argued that a fictitious land deforestation case was created as part of a bribery scheme, enabling a manipulated transfer of funds to the suspects. The CBA allegedly produced illegal documents to push through the system, with further allegations of illegal wiretapping in self-defense scenarios.
In March 2015, the Warsaw District Court sentenced Kamiński and Wąsik to three years for exceeding powers and other CBA offenses. Two other former board members received sentences of about 2.5 years. Kamiński described the verdict as unjust and incomprehensible, stating that it violated the core sense of justice.
The case resurfaced after more than eight years following the Supreme Court’s June ruling. The Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber, after cassation appeals by assistant prosecutors, annulled the district court’s termination of the case and referred it back for re-examination. The subsequent decision was issued by the Court of Appeal on December 20 of the previous year.
There has been growing commentary on the lack of conviction regarding whether the president truly intends to complete the full procedure, with some observers challenging the timing and implications of any potential pardon actions.
This narrative reflects ongoing legal and political discourse surrounding the case and the presidential power to grant clemency during an active inquiry process.
gan/PAP