On the Record: Parliamentary Status of Kamiński and Wąsik
There is a clear statement that Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik are not currently members of the Polish parliament. Their seats were revoked by a court decision, not by the Sejm itself. The matter is considered closed by some voices, while others argue that the situation deserves closer legal and constitutional scrutiny. The focus remains on pressing social initiatives envisioned for the Sejm, with expectations that citizens guiding these efforts will be respected by all lawmakers.
That perspective came from Szymon Hołownia, the Marshal of the Sejm, who communicated his position in a public post before a Sejm session, noting a tone of confidence about the orderly conduct of parliamentary business and citizen-supported projects.
There are also reminders that current parliamentary representation should reflect court decisions rather than any unilateral actions by political factions. The dialogue continues about who may participate in parliamentary work and how mandates from prior rulings should be treated as the political calendar moves forward.
– a statement attributed to the Marshal, delivered in the run-up to a Sejm gathering, signaling a firm stance on procedure and dignity in parliamentary debate.
READ MORE: Hołownia restricts access for Kamiński and Wąsik to the Sejm, citing security considerations. The Guard’s role is noted as a factor in the decision.
Response from MP Wąsik
Maciej Wąsik issued a reply through the same public platform, addressing the marshal’s remarks.
Is the case truly closed? The response was brief and affirmative, arguing that the matter had reached a firm conclusion according to current public discourse.
The National Electoral Commission and Requests for Legal Justification
Questions have arisen about why the National Electoral Commission is seeking a clear legal basis from the Marshal of the Sejm regarding the appointment of potential successors for Kamiński and Wąsik.
In documents concerning Kamiński, the Commission referenced judicial decisions from the Supreme Court, including interim rulings that touched on the expiry or continuation of a mandate after a final verdict. While one chamber voided a Sejm decision allowing the mandate to lapse in light of the final sentence, another chamber did not accept an appeal regarding Kamiński.
The Commission pressed Hołownia to state whether it intends to maintain the request to designate individuals who could assume Kamiński’s mandate if appropriate, and to provide the factual and legal basis for the Marshal’s actions because Supreme Court rulings may conflict with those actions.
The Commission also highlighted that the Supreme Court decisions were issued after the Marshal’s initial letter to the Commission, emphasizing the need for an up-to-date position on the matter.
The same line of inquiry was echoed in the Wąsik case, with references to the Supreme Court’s Chamber for Extraordinary Scrutiny and Public Affairs, which on January 4 annulled a Sejm Chairman’s decision to terminate Wąsik’s mandate.
READ MORE: The National Electoral Commission seeks a legal basis from Hołownia regarding the expiry of Kamiński and Wąsik’s mandates. The marshal aims to appoint successors.
Some observers note that Hołownia has positioned himself as a potentially wiser authority than some constitutional scholars regarding parliamentary mandates. Critics point to experts who have suggested that Kamiński and Wąsik retain their seats in the Sejm and should participate in legislative proceedings, arguing that the matter is not closed as proposed by the marshal.
– A respected constitutionalist’s view is cited, supporting the interpretation that Kamiński and Wąsik remain parliamentarians.
— Another scholar’s assessment reinforces the position that they have not lost their seats and should be eligible to take part in Sejm sessions.
olnk/X/wPolityce.pl/PAP
Source: wPolityce