Law and Justice members of parliament Marcin Horała and Waldemar Buda entered the Prime Minister’s Chancellery to seek expert opinions on the CPK project, a plan that had been publicly championed by Donald Tusk and which many questioned regarding its justification and financial viability in the Central Communications Gate initiative.
The scene was calm but tense as the two MPs waited inside the Chancellery, hoping for a response to their formal submission. One SOP employee accompanied them, explaining that guidelines were being awaited. The MPs recalled clear procedures that allowed any member of parliament to present correspondence in person. They carried documents and requested independent expert analyses to inform the decision-making process.
– said Waldemar Buda.
Access to documents in public institutions is a right of Members of Parliament, and the MPs argued that the requested expert opinions should be made public. A growing concern emerged that the purported expert reports did not exist or were not accessible, casting doubt on the government’s stated position. The Prime Minister had publicly claimed that the opinions existed, yet they were not available, prompting questions about the next steps. The situation was complicated by the early hour, with many officials not yet present to make decisions, leaving the MPs waiting in limbo. They asserted that, in line with their statutory rights, the expert guidance mentioned by the Prime Minister should be disclosed to them.
– added Horała.
What followed was a portrait of uncertainty. The MPs emphasized their peaceful posture and legitimate expectations under the law governing the conduct of parliamentary mandates. If delays persisted, they indicated they would proceed to submit the intervention directly to the Prime Minister’s Secretariat as provided by law.
– Buda.
No expert opinion
The reception by the Chancellery appeared limited to a single SOP officer awaiting further instructions, while the wider process of procuring expert advice seemed stalled. The Prime Minister’s Chancellery appeared to be deliberating who could authorize sharing or producing the requested analyses, and the eight o’clock hour was described as insufficient for decisive action by any senior official.
— wrote Horała in a post on X, detailing the morning’s events and the lack of immediate guidance.
The day’s coverage highlighted broader questions about the availability and visibility of expert opinions related to the CPK. Politicians noted that the specific documents were not located, and there appeared to be no person authorized to direct further steps or to confirm where the requested evaluations could be found.
As the morning wore on, the MPs left the Chancellery with a sense that no expert opinions addressing the validity of the CPK had been produced or released. The Prime Minister was not present, and the head of the Chancellery was not in the building at that moment. The entrance area had been crowded with activity and uncertainty, and the MPs stated they had left a formal letter at the Prime Minister’s office. They planned to pursue alternatives, including contacting the government’s designated representative for the CPK, in the hope that the sought-after expert insights could be located or documented elsewhere.
– Horała.
Bezholów in the Prime Minister’s Chancellery
The former Deputy Minister of Development and Technology noted that even at nine in the morning, senior management within the Chancellery was not visible at the office, complicating timely decision-making. The MPs apologized for arriving so early and explained that they would continue to seek clarity by moving to related offices and ministries to obtain the needed guidance.
– Waldemar Buda.
In the days that followed, the discourse around the CPK and the accompanying expert opinions continued to unfold in public forums and media commentary, with politicians asserting that concrete documentation was not readily accessible and that a clear path forward remained elusive. The conversations underscored the importance of transparent access to independent assessments when major infrastructure plans are on the table, and the need for timely official responses to parliamentary inquiries.
These developments reflected a broader debate about accountability, governance, and the role of expert analysis in shaping large-scale investments. The absence of definitive documents did not dampen the MPs’ resolve to pursue the matter, and their actions highlighted the ongoing tug-of-war between legislative oversight and executive operations in a high-stakes policy arena.