Just before the break in the parliamentary investigation committee session, KO MP Magdalena Filiks had several tense exchanges with a witness, former deputy head of MAP Artur Soboboń. On December 13, the coalition politician chose a more conciliatory approach, saying she would share her observations rather than simply press for answers. “Please do not project your fears and anxieties onto me,” she told the witness after revealing what she described as his behavioral patterns during earlier testimony.
READ ALSO: REPORT. Soboboń before the investigative committee. He had previously stated that he understood the concerns and expectations about his testimony, acknowledging the pressure and the fear surrounding the proceedings.
Filiks questioned what had prompted Soboboń to change his stance and to answer questions on that day, given that during the January session he had not provided responses.
You asserted your stance: “You did not answer any of the questions.” The witness responded that he had reasons for his previous silence and that circumstances had evolved since.
That exchange was the start of a pointed back-and-forth, with Filiks challenging why Soboboń had not offered his line of reasoning earlier and why he now appeared to form his own conclusions.
She pressed him on the motive behind his previous refusals to read the line of questions aloud and whether personal judgments had shaped his current testimony.
It was explained by Soboboń that there was no intention to testify beyond the scope of his knowledge and the objectives of the committee’s inquiry. If the testimony did not meet the committee’s expectations, there was an understanding that the matter could be reviewed by a court, including the possibility of penalties, though this was not presented as a foregone conclusion.
If such a legal review were initiated, Soboboń affirmed that it would not restrict his ability to respond to future proceedings or to challenge any subsequent judgments in court.
There was a moment when opinions diverged about how the questions should be addressed, and Filiks suggested that a different approach could have been taken to obtain more direct answers rather than employing rhetorical strategies. The witness was reminded that it is the committee’s role to gather factual information and not to rely on improvised interpretations.
When Soboboń attempted to respond, Filiks continued to interrupt, elevating her voice to emphasize her point. In that moment, Soboboń requested a calmer environment, stating that he did not engage in shouting and that the conduct of the testimony was becoming challenging for him. The exchange underscored the friction between the members’ expectations and the witness’s effort to provide a complete and accurate account.
With tension running high, the witness expressed a degree of respect for the committee members, while also asserting that respect needed to be mutual. Filiks articulated that she did not admire defensive tactics but preferred a straightforward, accountable approach to the questions at hand.
The December 13 session raised broader questions about the treatment of witnesses and the focus of the coalition members. Critics argued that the attention should have stayed squarely on the substance of postal voting and the integrity of the electoral process rather than on personal dynamics during testimony. Some commentators suggested that the coalition might be more inclined to pursue retribution than to clarify issues that could reassure the public about the electoral framework. The discussion highlighted the ongoing debate over how parliamentary investigations are conducted and how witnesses should be engaged to elicit clear and verifiable information. This ongoing debate continued to reverberate beyond the committee room, shaping public perception of the investigative process and the conduct of political actors involved.
Source material for the events was reported by parliamentary coverage and news outlets at the time, with additional context provided by analysis pieces that interpreted the strategic choices of both sides of the committee. The proceedings were cited in post-session summaries by newsroom staff to help readers understand the sequence of remarks and the underlying issues being probed during the inquiry. The evolving narrative illustrates how committee hearings can become a stage for both procedural rigor and political theater, especially when controversial topics such as voting integrity and campaign rhetoric intersect with personal accountability. The broader takeaway emphasized the importance of maintaining focus on verified facts and ensuring witnesses have a fair opportunity to present their statements without undue pressure. The coverage reflects the public interest in transparent governance and credible parliamentary oversight. The narrative remains part of the record of the committee’s work and continues to inform subsequent evaluations of the role played by various political actors in the parliamentary process. The account and interpretations of the events were reported by the public press and parliamentary outlets and are cited here for context and continuity.
Citation: coverage is drawn from parliamentary records and political commentary from wPolityce and the Sejm’s official materials. While the exact phrasing varies among sources, the essential sequence of events and the central questions addressed align with the published summaries from those outlets. This summarization reflects a synthesis intended to clarify the dynamics of the session for readers who follow parliamentary proceedings. Additional notes on the context and reactions are available from readers and analysts who tracked the discussion closely, offering a broader view of how such hearings are perceived in the public sphere.
jj/Sejm.gov.pl
Source: wPolityce