Parliamentary Drama Surrounding Wąsik and Kamiński: Letters, Rulings, and the Sejm Schedule
Maciej Wąsik, a member of the ruling party, shared details of a letter dated December 21 from the Chairman of the Sejm. In the letter, the speaker asks Wąsik to relinquish his parliamentary duties until the Supreme Court resolves an appeal. The claim was made that the Supreme Court had already ruled in favor of Wąsik on January 4, clearing him to resume his duties, with plans to participate in the Sejm session scheduled for January 10. The exchange underscores the tension surrounding mandates and courtroom decisions that ripple through the legislative calendar.
There was a public note urging readers to consider the unfolding events in context. The narrative includes statements from Maciej Wąsik on social media asserting that there had been no request to delay the sentence, and that no further requests would be made. He stressed readiness to return to parliamentary responsibilities, emphasizing the upcoming January 10 session in the Sejm.
Wąsik himself confirmed via a social post that he had received the December 21 notice and described the Supreme Court decision as favorable on January 4. He asserted the intention to return to duties without delay, highlighting the January 10 Sejm appearance as a concrete timeline.
In parallel, former CBA head and former Interior Minister Mariusz Kamiński, alongside Wąsik, faced a two-year prison sentence announced in connection with the so-called land case. The Sejm’s Speaker issued decisions terminating their parliamentary mandates, but subsequent court actions challenged those decisions. The case drew significant attention as both the Warsaw Court of Appeal judgments and the Speaker’s decisions were questioned in light of later legal proceedings. Notably, Wąsik and Kamiński had received presidential pardons in 2015, a detail that added political resonance to the evolving rulings.
On an ongoing basis, the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Labor and Social Security received appeals from Wąsik and Kamiński. The appeals, filed by the Speaker of the Sejm, related to the termination of their mandates and sparked a broader debate about how the Sejm and the judiciary interact on electoral mandates. The settlement arrangement involving the Speaker and other officials drew negative commentary, intensifying questions about the legitimacy and timing of the Sejm’s decisions. In subsequent developments, the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court transferred Wąsik’s case to the Chamber for Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, a move reported as part of the courthouses’ process to adjudicate complex parliamentary termination matters. Later, it was cited that the Extraordinary Control Chamber reversed the Speaker’s decision to terminate Wąsik’s mandate, and within days, a similar reversal occurred in Kamiński’s case, signaling a notable shift in the judicial stance on these parliamentary exits.
Wąsik later commented on social media about the letter from the Sejm’s Chairman. He described receiving the notice on a Friday and then posting a copy of the December 21 letter on his feed. The document referenced the need for Wąsik to refrain from exercising parliamentary rights until the Supreme Court resolves the appeal, while maintaining that the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor, thereby allowing a return to official duties. The post underscored the January 10 Sejm session as the next milestone in the public narrative surrounding these political and legal proceedings.
The attached document from the Sejm’s Chairman outlined that Wąsik had been notified of the termination decision and urged him to suspend rights and obligations arising from holding the parliamentary mandate. It specifically called on him to refrain from voting at Sejm meetings and related bodies while the Electoral Law and the Supreme Court process proceeded. The document suggested a pause until the Supreme Court delivered a final determination, illustrating the procedural complexities at play as the electoral and judicial timelines intersect.
As the new session of the Sejm looms on January 10, observers watch closely how the court rulings and parliamentary actions will influence the legislative agenda. The evolving sequence of decisions and appeals highlights the delicate balance between judiciary oversight and the prerogatives of the Sejm in shaping the composition of its members and the continuity of parliamentary duties.
WB, PAP
Attribution: wPolityce