Interrogation at the Pegasus Committee: A Live Show with the PiS Leader under Fire
The envisioned spectacle never fully materialized. Jarosław Kaczyński stood at the center, facing relentless questions, yet the anticipated collapse of the ruling party did not follow. Critics called the proceedings a disappointment, a display mired in ignorance of the law and a string of provocative moves that failed to convert into concrete outcomes. The December 13 coalition factions filled the ranks with skepticism, but the sequence of events left many convinced that, content-wise, little of value had been unearthed.
The Pegasus investigative committee, led by a chair whose formal credentials have prompted debate, became the focal point of sharp scrutiny. Observers questioned how the chair could be trusted to oversee such a pivotal inquiry. Dismissals of legal expertise and battlefield experience were not hard to notice. Yet the chair has one clear strength: a sense of duty that shows even in difficult moments. The swift motion to exclude Members of the Left and KO—cited for what was described as a persistent media bias against the PiS president—was promptly presented and then judged by the committee as unsatisfactory. Expelling two PiS MPs for commentary on the conduct of the hearing raised questions about proportionality, marking a moment of controversial decision-making. The suggestion to subject the former prime minister to a lie detector, though, was quickly dismissed as a novelty incompatible with the practice of parliamentary inquiries and criminal proceedings alike due to reliability concerns.
From an external vantage point, the attempt to press Kaczyński harshly was evident. The aggressive tone from some participants and the din outside the chamber painted a picture of high emotion. Yet the opening premise—that the hearing would be a public execution of the PiS president—was undermined by counter-moves that disrupted expected tactics. One analyst noted that an earlier maneuver by MP Trela suggested the most aggressive confrontation was planned first, with the paperwork to follow. Such sequencing clashed with both parliamentary logic and the practical workflow of a formal inquiry. Still, the ultimate objective did not hinge on the apparent good of the matter.
The December 13 Coalition team has long hoped for hours of interrogation with Kaczyński, longing to see him unsettled and to witness the precise wording of his replies. They anticipated a moment when words might falter. In this session, however, Kaczyński appeared composed and ready. He answered with courtesy when addressed as a witness rather than a prime minister, explaining the distinctions politely. His demeanor included light humor, and during a break he even joined colleagues for a pancake pause—a moment captured and shared on social media by MP Bochenek. The break also saw a spread of public commentary about the fate of a pancake shop, a lighthearted aside that contrasted with the seriousness of the day.
During a later moment, a chorus of claims arose that the session was prolonged without justification, but Kaczyński asserted that the meeting could proceed despite the absence of a formal clearance document from the Prime Minister regarding secrets. The discussion touched on the framing of the oath and the scope of inquiry, with a key point being whether certain assurances could be offered in a broader context rather than through a closed session. The incident underscored tensions between procedural rigor and perceived fairness within the committee.
One participant, MP Bosacki, expressed strong dissatisfaction that led to a formal motion for a monetary fine. This move, supported by coalition partners, highlighted how sharply politics and procedure intersect in these proceedings. The substance of the questions—whether Kaczyński participated in, and had knowledge of, Pegasus use—remained the central question. The consensus reached at the end was that no unlawful procurement or use of the software occurred, leaving some observers with a sense that the hunt had not produced transformative revelations. Online discourse among supporters and critics alike reflected both disappointment and a sense of unfinished business.
The broader national context in Poland has complicated the Pegasus issue. The system was reportedly moved out of service by the state, sparking debate about the impact on law enforcement capabilities. Critics warned that this constraint could affect the effectiveness of investigations into organized crime, espionage, and corruption. The discussion touched on concerns about political influence, media monitoring, and the use of power against opponents. One notable moment involved a reference to journalists who had been monitored in a prior government period, which elicited a chorus of procedural tension as microphones were adjusted and names were read aloud for public record. The scene drew a stark line between political theater and the real-world implications for civil liberties and oversight.
Observers described the proceedings as a dramatic exchange, with some framing it as a clash of leadership styles rather than a decisive breakthrough. The day’s events offered a rare glimpse into the stamina and strategy of both sides—how a president of Law and Justice navigates persistent questioning and how opposition members test the boundaries of parliamentary inquiry. The outcome left many reflecting on what was learned: that Kaczyński did not authorize Pegasus procurement, was not aware of its planned use by services, and that there was no illegal deployment. Yet the appetite for further information and accountability lingered.
In the end, Poland was left contemplating the ongoing tension between government transparency and political protection. The conversation around Pegasus raised broader questions about how to balance security needs with civil liberties, and how public inquiries should function in a busy parliamentary landscape. The episode remains a point of reference for debates about oversight, authority, and the limits of investigative committees, with many following the narrative as it evolves in the press and among political commentators. The episode’s resonance extends beyond the chamber, inviting a wider discussion about governance and accountability in the modern Polish state. ”