In a recent interview, Bartłomiej Wróblewski, a PiS member of parliament, warned that if Marshal Hołownia presents himself as a legal strict constructionist, others will push to take him to court as well, a remark he shared with wPolityce.pl.
READ ALSO:
– Tusk’s coalition shows contempt for the law as the Supreme Court decision is ignored and Wąsik and Kamiński’s parliamentary maps are overturned
– ONLY HERE. There was no request to the court to postpone the sentence. Maciej Wąsik asserts there will be no appeals and no delays
wPolityce.pl: Should Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik face imprisonment now? The issue has sparked widespread confusion.
Wróblewski responded that no, this should not happen. He noted that the president acted correctly in 2015 by granting pardons to the two ministers. Institutions or individuals who challenge this precedent are misguided. In recent days there has been public debate over whether the president overstepped by forwarding appeals to the Supreme Court. This has opened a new dispute with additional elements. Controversies are mounting about whether charges should be filed against the marshal for possible legal violations. While the scope of presidential pardons may raise questions due to limited practice, the constitution grants the president a pardon prerogative. The Constitutional Court has weighed in, which should clarify the matter.
The central question remains how Szymon Hołownia could be accused of breaking the law in the Wąsik and Kamiński case.
Hołownia should forward the ministers’ appeals to the Supreme Court and leave the internal division of powers within the court to decide. There should be no meetings between the marshal’s emissary and the head of any Supreme Court chamber, as that could be seen as attempting to influence the court’s jurisdiction over who hears the case and under what conditions.
Each action in isolation raises questions about legality, and taken together they create a perception of diminished credibility for the marshal and his circle. Questions arise whether there is a crime under article 231 of the Criminal Code, meaning abuse of power.
The public wonders whether the marshal should bear criminal liability in this matter. It is not helpful when ministers, marshals, and state officials wage courtroom battles among themselves. Such confrontations should be exceptional. The legislature allows bringing parliamentarians and government members before the State Court, but this is a temporary, extraordinary mechanism whose use carries substantial costs. Yet the drive from both the opposition and the government side reveals a different logic—one that could encourage similar challenges if the marshal positions himself as a legal purist. He should consider that others may respond in kind and pursue him through the courts.
Recently, by order of the head of the Sejm Chancellery, Jacek Cichocki, the parliamentary mandates of Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński were deactivated. How should this be viewed in light of the Supreme Court Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs having annulled decisions by the Sejm President Szymon Hołownia to end their mandates?
Hołownia has no authority to formally critique the bodies of the judiciary, regardless of his assessment. It stands out that he was the one who forwarded the ministers’ appeals to the Supreme Court. The marshal should exercise restraint in this matter since the Sejm’s role is to guard the rights of deputies and the chamber. A step back seems prudent while the Supreme Court has already held that the mandate termination decision was revoked. Wąsik and Kamiński remain members of the Sejm with the right and obligation to participate in meetings and votes.
Nonetheless, this case is unlikely to end soon as the Supreme Court’s Labor Chamber plans to hear the case next week.
The Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs has already delivered a ruling. Any move by another chamber would deepen legal confusion and undermine the court’s authority. It is worth noting that soon another Supreme Court chamber will decide on the validity of the parliamentary elections, which places political actors in a difficult position. Those who question the right to govern will face a tough test, since they must remain coherent in their arguments.
Does this mean that undermining the legality of the Supreme Court’s Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs Chamber could eventually undermine the legitimacy of the last election?
Such concerns are anticipated. Wróblewski suggested that Hołownia is unnecessarily entangling himself in the dispute. The outcome could surprise Hołownia and his political allies, potentially challenging the Sejm’s legitimacy and, by extension, the legitimacy of the body that adjudicates election validity.
And the question remains whether this would spur calls for early parliamentary elections among the public sphere.
That is one possible scenario. It is plausible that the enforceability of laws and Sejm resolutions could be questioned for various reasons, making the future hard to predict. The speaker emphasized that it would be irresponsible and perplexing for the chair to meddle in the scope of the president’s pardon power. If he appeals to the Supreme Court regarding the expiry of his mandate, he must accept the court’s rulings.
As the case grows more intricate, one wonders whether some force may attempt to arrest Wąsik and Kamiński before a final resolution is reached. The responder acknowledged such a possibility but warned that any such action would be illegal and carry serious consequences for the future. It remains likely that some factions will persist in their stance, even as others adopt a more pragmatic view, with the public and the judicial community holding steadfast in their positions.
All in all, the situation remains unsettled and intensely debated, with the parties watching closely how institutions balance rule of law and political expediency.
[Source: wPolityce]