“They don’t care if we have order or not.”
The discussion on Polsat News and Interia’s Rymanowski Breakfast featured a lineup that included Marcin Mastalerek, the Chancellor of the President, alongside Barbara Dolniak from KO, Piotr Zgorzelski of PSL-Trzecia Droga, Anna Maria Żukowska from the Left, Radosław Fogiel of PiS, and Krzysztof Bosak representing Confederation. The central topic was the case involving MPs Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik.
Żukowska described the situation as legally very complicated and likely difficult for the average viewer to grasp. She linked the current state of affairs to what she called eight years of rule-of-law erosion by the ruling party, insisting there remains a possibility to shield the affected parliamentarians by granting a presidential pardon to Kamiński and Wąsik post-conviction.
Bossak, who chairs the Sejm, argued that Polish authorities must adhere to court rulings and not bow to foreign pressure. He warned that yielding to external dictates, he said, could push Poland toward anarchy and suggested that officials in Luxembourg and Brussels were pushing for such outcomes, regardless of national order.
Dolniak asserted that the entire episode remains clear and enforceable once a final judgment is issued. In her view, once a verdict is pronounced, Kamiński and Wąsik are no longer Members of Parliament and cannot participate in plenary sessions. Zgorzelski echoed that the matter, while not inherently complex, rests on the finality of the court’s decision, noting that the two lawmakers were convicted of abuse of power and incitement to corruption. He emphasized that the final verdict is binding, and questioned whether the former MPs should retain voting rights after conviction.
When asked about possible imprisonment for fighting corruption, Bosak pointed to the stance that the Court of Justice in the European Union has no jurisdiction over Polish legal matters, while Dolniak and other KO members disputed that view. Mastalerek reportedly framed a recent Sejm leadership conference as a turning point, calling it a dark day for Szymon Hołownia’s political trajectory due to what was described as a realization of the severity of parliamentary responsibilities. Mastalerek argued that this moment should not cast doubt on presidential prerogatives or the seriousness of the Sejm’s duties.
He stressed that the presidential pardon, grounded in the Constitution, remains an exclusive presidential prerogative and argued that its use in 2015 should be seen as final. In his view, further action beyond the 2015 pardon should not have occurred, and the presidency should not be challenged on this issue.
Radosław Fogiel, a PiS legislator, supported this view by maintaining that the 2015 pardon was legally valid and that the president’s powers should not be questioned. Mastalerek reiterated the president’s position, suggesting that any challenge to pardon prerogatives could undermine the legitimacy of the state. The discussion touched on broader concerns about how political signals from the center of power might influence the fight against corruption across all groups, with Mastalerek warning that weakening anti-corruption efforts would set a dangerous precedent.
During the segment, interlocutors reflected on the long-standing public memory of a scene in which a public figure’s warning about courts without justice reflected a broader political attitude. The conversation underscored that public trust in legal processes and in the independence of institutions is a key topic in the current political climate, with remarks directed at the behavior of the ruling coalition as a whole.
The participants also examined whether Kamiński and Wąsik should participate in parliamentary votes given the final verdicts in their cases. While some argued they could re-enter the parliament as ordinary citizens, others questioned their eligibility to vote while holding a criminal conviction and noted the need for further clarification from constitutional and legal authorities. The overall tone suggested a tension between upholding the rule of law and honoring presidential prerogatives, with both sides presenting arguments about the proper balance between domestic legality and executive mercy.
A recurring theme was the perception that political signals matter in the ongoing fight against corruption. Commentators cautioned against actions that might be interpreted as soft on corruption or as politicking around high-profile cases. The discussion highlighted the delicate interplay between the judiciary, the presidency, and legislative leadership in shaping Poland’s anti-corruption stance, especially as it relates to high-level officials under investigation or conviction.
The program closed with reflections on the responsibility of state institutions to maintain order and to apply the law consistently. Across the debate, participants urged careful consideration of constitutional rights, the authority of final court judgments, and the implications of presidential pardons in an era of heightened political scrutiny. In sum, the exchange showcased a spectrum of opinions about how Poland should navigate the delicate issue of pardons, parliamentary legitimacy, and the ongoing battle against corruption. The conversation also acknowledged ongoing vigilance by political actors regarding the health and integrity of Poland’s democratic institutions. The coverage remains attributed to Polsat News and Interia with ongoing reporting on this topic.
aja/Polsat News
Source: wPolityce