Decisions on creating parliamentary committees of inquiry will be made jointly within the coalition; the likely timing centers on the formation of the government, said a left-leaning parliament member involved in negotiations. A member of the ruling coalition indicates that two to three such committees should be established.
The coalition agreement shared by the partners includes, besides programmatic points, a chapter focused on ensuring accountability for the new government. It states that the state’s prior alleged lawlessness must be exposed and addressed. The document contemplates setting up parliamentary investigative committees in areas that require careful and transparent scrutiny.
One of the left-leaning negotiators explained that executions of the agreement’s provisions would be decided collectively within the coalition. He suggested that decisions would most plausibly follow the government’s formation, with the possibility that committees could begin work in the following year.
There are numerous administrative tasks ahead. The topics likely to be examined include issues tied to electoral processes and pandemic-related funds, but also broader questions regarding the functioning of state institutions, including the prosecutor’s office.
He added that perhaps a single, comprehensive inquiry could concentrate on what has transpired over the past eight years. If normal state operations were restored, independent prosecutors would handle the investigations, reducing the need for multiple committees, although that outcome may still be years away.
Core principles and goals
A coalition member asserted that building an honest public administration under a zero-tolerance banner requires accountability at several levels, including the Sejm Committee on Constitutional Responsibility, the Sejm’s investigative committees, and the independent prosecutor’s office.
Depending on the gravity of any violations, responsibilities would be directed to the appropriate authorities.
The size and number of investigative committees would be determined by the coalition’s leaders. When asked about how many committees should exist, the reply was that there should not be too few.
Two to three committees were suggested to keep the investigations from overlapping and becoming unwieldy.
Ultimately, there is a preference for irregularities to be addressed by the independent public prosecutor’s office and by other state bodies tasked with probing different forms of abuse. However, given the scale of alleged misconduct, the public should be informed about the events of recent years, which is why these investigative committees are being considered.
The plan also calls for inquiries into specific areas, including transfers of funds from established institutions and foundations, the use of surveillance technologies against government opponents, the management of pandemic-related expenditures, and the procedures surrounding a major energy project, with other irregularities potentially examined as well.
Immunity is not the aim; those who have contravened the law will be required to answer for it directly.
These deliberations reflect a determination to pursue accountability through multiple avenues and ensure that the public gains a clear, factual record of recent governmental actions.
mly
Source: internal records