Parliamentary Exchange Over Visa Allegations Visibly Escalates Between KO and PiS MPs
An exchange of views occurred in the Sejm between Michał Szczerba, a KO MP and chairman of the visa scandal inquiry committee, and Paweł Jabłoński, a PiS MP and former deputy minister of foreign affairs. Jabłoński summarized the clash on X, stating that the dispute involved claims about hundreds of thousands of visas issued for bribes, a point he described as a lie supported by several arguments.
The dialogue continued as Szczerba pressed for clarification, noting that in committee a number had been cited—penned as 607—insisting that the figure referred to was not in the hundreds of thousands but six hundred and seven individual visas. Jabłoński echoed the accusation, insisting that the issue was framed by a broad political and media campaign that alleged large-scale visa corruption and urged an explanation of how such a narrative came to be accepted by the public.
“You lied, you used that lie. The mechanism of political and media lies should be explained by the committee,” Jabłoński asserted. He challenged the conduct of the inquiry by asking for the courage to summon him before the investigative body. He also noted that, while threats were raised from certain colleagues on the parliamentary podium, he remained ready to answer questions and expected others to do the same.
Jabłoński insisted, “Please have the courage to call me before the committee.” He suggested that perhaps some fear the information he possessed about Civic Platform politicians and hinted that the final determination on inviting witnesses would be up to the investigation committee, while asserting that he himself would appear if summoned.
Szczerba responded by stressing that many individuals could provide information and that the primary witnesses would eventually testify. He signaled that inquiry would extend to those who played decision-making roles and coordinated projects in related contexts, including a reference to a case connected with a city and earlier initiatives in the energy sector. He also claimed not to have held certain coordinating roles in the cited case, prompting a counterpoint from Jabłoński who reiterated the need to clarify personal involvement in the matter.
The two raised a back-and-forth about potential invitations to testify. Jabłoński implied that the list of potential witnesses might include figures from the Civic Platform, suggesting that the matter would hinge on the investigative committee’s final ruling. Szczerba replied that the decision rested with the committee and confirmed that Jabłoński was part of a broader roster under consideration for testimony. The PiS member pressed that the discussion should be grounded in evidentiary motions rather than speculation.
The exchange extended to a claim that the ongoing controversy over visa issuance had become a public narrative, with Szczerba admitting in earlier committee proceedings that the matter focused on a specific figure count rather than a large-scale scheme. Jabłoński framed this revelation as evidence of a purposeful, oversized political and media fabrication, insisting that a full explanation was necessary. He offered his willingness to cooperate with the investigative committee while expressing concern that he had not yet been summoned, despite appearing ready to participate.
The dialogue also touched on the potential involvement of additional witnesses linked to the broader visa debate. Both participants positioned the inquiry as a mechanism to uncover the full scope of decisions and actions related to the visa program and to trace any misrepresentations that may have influenced public perception. The tone remained assertive throughout, with both sides underscoring the importance of transparency, accountability, and the role of the committee in clarifying the record.
In this dispute, the central issue remained clear: whether the public narrative around thousands of visas tied to bribes was a deliberate fabrication or a mischaracterization of a much smaller number of cases. The discussion showed the political tools at play when information is interpreted, disseminated, and debated within the halls of parliament and on social media platforms. As the committee continues its work, observers await further testimonies to determine if the figures cited in public discourse can be reconciled with verified records and official findings.