It appears that PK has no opinions of its own. The opinions come from A. Myrcha and his associate, who also hide the date of their order. Patryk Jaki commented on the information about Arkadiusz Myrcha seeking legal opinions regarding the immunity status of MP Romanowski, noting that the deputy minister of justice responded to the criticism.
Kaleta pointed out that Arkadiusz Myrcha, deputy head of the Ministry of Justice, would personally supervise the process of forming an opinion on Romanowski’s immunity. He stressed that despite the deputy justice minister’s political involvement, the opinions are not as unambiguous as the December 13 coalition might prefer.
The immunity advice for MP Romanowski was not requested by the Prosecutor’s Office. It was prepared at the political request of Arkadiusz Myrcha. Sebastian Kaleta made this claim on X.
Today, during a parliamentary inquiry at the Ministry of Justice, it was revealed that the opinions did not originate from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and were not issued at its request. Instead, they were prepared at the ministry’s request, with Arkadiusz Myrcha acting on behalf of that political body.
More reactions followed on social media, where opposition figures condemned what they saw as political influence over prosecutorial work. Szymon Szynkowski, known as Sęk, described the situation as unbelievable on X.
Dr. Bartosz Lewandowski, the lawyer for MP Marcin Romanowski, commented on Kaleta’s statements, questioning when Arkadiusz Myrcha learned about the second immunity and why the advice was outsourced to a political institution rather than handled by the Public Prosecution Service.
Wójcik praised Kaleta for exposing the chain of command and pointed out that a deputy minister appears to have influenced the prosecution, labeling the episode a scandal.
Jan Kanthak questioned the basis for placing an opinion on a politician or deputy minister during a process governed by the public prosecutor and asked whether powers were being exceeded.
In a separate remark, a neo-prosecutor spokesperson suggested that the open centers were being scrutinized and that the so-called smaller opinions were being carefully checked. The claim was that PK had no opinions and that those attributed to someone else were created retrospectively, with a judge of the European Court of Human Rights cited to counter the ruling. Observers noted the timing of Romanowski’s second international immunity and the rapid move to formulate a response, implying potential legal lapses and a political maneuvering behind the scenes.
Another voice questioned the handling of equipment that had been seized and stored for months. The inquiry noted that legal advice from various specialists would be sought only to determine how to recover equipment that could be copied in a short time, a question directed at the prosecutor’s office’s accessibility and responsiveness.
The Myrcha stance
Myrcha himself chose to address the matter on X, reacting to Kaleta and to the opposition’s expressions of disapproval. He suggested that expert advice is sought when circumstances require it, citing cases such as the status of D. Barski and the situation with Romanowski. He argued that this is not political maneuvering but the functioning of a responsible institution.
Analysis across the political spectrum highlights a debate about how immune status determinations should be conducted and who should authorize them. The central question remains whether the process should be driven by political actors or by the Public Prosecution Service, and what safeguards exist to prevent improper influence.
The discussion continues as observers emphasize the need for transparency in how immunity opinions are commissioned and recorded, and as lawmakers assess whether current procedures adequately protect the integrity of investigations and prosecutions.
For broader context, coverage notes the ongoing discourse around immunity, the proper channels for obtaining legal opinions, and the broader implications for parliamentary oversight and judicial independence. The focus remains on ensuring that processes remain within statutory boundaries and free from undue political leverage, while preserving the ability to address legitimate legal questions that arise in high-profile cases.