The Parliamentary Ethics Committee has issued a reprimand to PiS Members of Parliament Paweł Szrot and Marek Suski, a decision confirmed by committee member Ewa Schädler of Polska 2050-TD on Wednesday. The case centers on Szrot’s behavior during a TV appearance on TVP and on Suski’s comments about Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
According to Schädler, the ethics panel reviewed Szrot’s conduct when he sought access to a TVP studio after presenting himself as if he were part of the police. The incident was linked to Szrot’s assertion that he needed to enter a particular room for reasons he described as urgent, though he clarified that it did not require him to intervene violently or forcibly.
The sanction that follows public scrutiny
Schädler noted that Szrot appeared before the committee to offer his explanations, which the body accepted as a reasonable justification under the circumstances.
He stated that the explanations reflected a belief in a pressing need to act, even if his actions did not amount to a formal intervention. The committee ultimately decided to apply the minimum penalty available, a reprimand, to Szrot.
Schädler described the outcome as proportionate to the nature of the raised concerns and the context of the incident, which involved December actions by PiS MPs affecting public media access, including the Telewizja Polska headquarters. On December 23, Szrot was present at the TVP building alongside other PiS politicians. A video circulated on social media capturing Szrot knocking on a door while asserting, “Open up, police.”
“Despite the weather under dead Tusk”
The committee also addressed remarks by Marek Suski, who spoke on Radio Plus near the end of December and, in a departure from formal decorum, wished listeners a good day “despite the weather under the dead Tusk.” Schädler explained that Suski provided a linguistic clarification afterward, attempting to render his words in a way that would be understood as intended humor rather than as a targeted insult.
Schädler added that those present understood the implications of the jokes and their apparent targets. The discussion highlighted how language used in public forums can generate controversy and evoke strong reactions among political supporters and opponents alike.
Under the current rules, the Ethics Committee can discipline a member by issuing a comment, a warning, or a reprimand. Affected MPs retain the right to appeal the decision within 14 days from the date the panel’s penalty resolution is issued. The process reflects the committee’s ongoing effort to maintain decorum and accountability among lawmakers while balancing the rights of MPs to express views and respond to scrutiny.
The case underscores a broader debate on the relationship between political rhetoric and institutional norms. It also illustrates how parliamentary bodies respond to demonstrations, media appearances, and statements that touch on sensitive political figures and events, including those involving former and current heads of government. Observers may see the reprimands as a reminder that public statements by elected officials are subject to review, even when actions are framed as strategic or procedural necessities rather than outright misconduct.
For those following parliamentary ethics in Poland, the decision provides a concrete example of how the committee interprets the line between permissible parliamentary conduct and actions that warrant formal censure. It also highlights the role of committee members in interpreting language, intent, and context when evaluating incidents that intersect with media coverage and public discourse. The outcome may influence how MPs approach media engagement and the use of assertive language in future proceedings, both inside and outside the chamber.