The Prime Minister has appointed a new National Prosecutor, Mr Dariusz Korneluk. The president has not expressed a view on the change, a spokesperson from the Prime Minister’s Chancellery stated to neo-TVP Info. This development continues the ongoing reshaping of Poland’s top public prosecution leadership as officials emphasize the need for uninterrupted work within the Public Prosecution Service.
It is important to note that Korneluk’s selection came after a controversial process described by some critics as an illegal contest led by Minister Adam Bodnar. The circumstances surrounding the selection have been the subject of significant debate, with discussions focusing on whether the process met legal standards and what it means for the authority of the office of the National Prosecutor. The Prime Minister’s Office has framed Korneluk’s appointment as a normal step in ensuring continuity in the Public Prosecution Service, especially since the assignment of tasks to the immediate predecessor had recently concluded.
Spokespersons emphasized that the institution must operate without disruption, underscoring the importance of stable leadership at the national level. In response to inquiries about whether the President approved or opposed the change, the President’s Chancellery indicated that the President did not intend to issue a statement at that moment. The parties involved suggested that the President might wait for a decision from the Constitutional Tribunal on a related jurisdiction question surrounding the election of the previous prosecutor appointed during the tenure of the former minister, Zbigniew Ziobro.
Officials from the Prime Minister’s Chancellery asserted that the President does not have a legal basis to challenge or preempt the government’s actions in this situation, while also noting that the law requires the President to furnish an opinion in due course. The absence of an immediate presidential opinion is therefore not interpreted as a rejection but as a procedural stance tied to ongoing legal considerations about the appointment’s legality and its implications for leadership within the prosecution service.
In the commentary that followed, the Prime Minister’s Office clarified that the President’s eventual input would be non-binding on the government’s choices. The discussion highlighted the broader issue of how executive and constitutional powers interact during leadership changes within the National Prosecution Service, and it drew attention to the delicate balance between legal procedure and political oversight.
According to the Public Prosecution Service Act, the National Prosecutor and other deputies are selected from among the prosecutors of the National Public Prosecution Service. They are appointed by the Senate upon the proposal of the Attorney General and may be dismissed likewise. The statutory framework also states that these appointments involve the President’s advice and written consent, underscoring the layered nature of the appointment process and the responsibility of multiple branches of government to approve leadership roles within the service.
Thus, while Korneluk’s appointment marks a notable change at the top of the national prosecution hierarchy, the formal mechanics—requiring the Senate’s approval and the President’s consent—remain in effect. Observers note that such procedures are designed to provide checks and balances, even as they can generate public debate about the transparency and fairness of the selection process. The ongoing discourse around this transition is shaped by questions about precedent, governance, and the best way to ensure accountability within the criminal justice system.
As this leadership transition unfolds, analysts caution against drawing immediate conclusions about long-term policy shifts. They emphasize that the key test will be how Korneluk and his team manage investigations, prosecutions, and coordination with other branches of government, while upholding the rule of law and preserving the public’s trust in the prosecutorial process. The situation remains under close watch by legal observers, policymakers, and the public alike, who seek clarity on the implications for judicial independence and the integrity of national institutions.
Note: This account reflects reporting from various outlets and official statements as cited in contemporary coverage from Polish news organizations. Citation: wPolityce.