The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are contending with a rapid, unilateral policy move that one prosecutor described as a fait accompli. Dariusz Barski, who was removed earlier this year from the role of national prosecutor, spoke to PAP about the unfolding events. He stated that related requests have been brought before the Constitutional Court and that he awaits a ruling on the case there.
Barski emphasized that he remains hopeful the Constitutional Court will hear his matter, signaling confidence in the court’s guarantees that protect his position and the rule of law while a competency dispute could be considered if the President initiates one.
On October 8, the head of the Prime Minister’s Chancellery announced that a new national prosecutor had been appointed. Dariusz Korneluk was selected through a formal competition process and was positioned as the successor to the National Prosecutor’s Office after the process concluded. However, the opposition has not endorsed Korneluk, and the President has not publicly stated support for the candidacy.
Barski argued that the Prime Minister’s decision lacks a legal basis since he still holds the office of national prosecutor. He noted that constitutional guarantees remain in force, including a pending complaint and the potential for a competency dispute if the President deems it necessary.
He added that he is awaiting the Constitutional Court’s decision and expressed that, although he is in a serious role, he will not engage in extrajudicial actions or attempts to reclaim the post by force. He stressed that such behavior is not acceptable.
Barski also voiced concerns about the future of the Public Prosecution Service, suggesting uncertainty in the coming months. He described a period of chaos marked by appointments to key prosecutor’s office positions by Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz, whom he claimed acted as an acting national prosecutor without proper legal basis. He argued that these appointments appear unfounded.
Barski recalled that one of the courts had already forwarded questions to the Supreme Court on this matter as well, indicating ongoing judicial involvement at multiple levels.
Illegal changes in the prosecutor’s office
Mid-January saw significant changes at the top of the public prosecutor’s office. During a meeting with the National Prosecutor, the Justice Minister presented a document asserting that Barski’s reinstatement to active duty on February 16, 2022, under the prior Attorney General, had been contrary to regulations and produced no legal consequences. The Prime Minister’s decision led to Jacek Bilewicz serving as acting National Prosecutor.
Barski disagreed with this interpretation and filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court regarding the grounds for his removal. The President at the time asserted that Barski remained an active national prosecutor and had not been effectively removed from his post. Records indicate that the President raised a question before the Constitutional Court about the powers of the President, the Prime Minister, and the office in question.
Candidates for the election of the new National Public Prosecutor were considered up to mid-February, and by late February the Justice Ministry recommended Korneluk for the position from among the submitted applicants. The situation drew attention from observers and commentators who noted alleged legal irregularities surrounding the appointment process.
There was commentary on the episode as part of broader discussions about the independence and functioning of the national prosecutor’s office and its leadership structure. The development has been described in various outlets as an important moment in Polish judicial and political discourse, reflecting tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary over the distribution of prosecutorial authority.
In summary, the unfolding sequence of resignations, appointments, and court challenges has sparked extensive debate about legality, constitutional guarantees, and the future direction of Poland’s public prosecution system. The case continues to attract attention from legal observers and the public as authorities await decisive rulings from the Constitutional Court and other judicial bodies.