The debate around changes to Poland’s National Prosecution Office centers on who holds authority and how the President’s consent shapes leadership moves. An official note from the Presidential Chancellery, shared via the X platform, states that President Andrzej Duda has not authorized the dismissal of the National Prosecutor, nor has he indicated a position on selecting a successor. In current parliamentary and legal discussions, such confirmations underscore the constitutional balance between the executive and prosecutorial leadership, and they highlight how presidential assent remains a pivotal factor in reorganizing the top leadership of the public prosecution service. Today’s developments show ongoing dialogue, including contact between the President and the sitting National Prosecutor and his deputies, signaling consultations rather than a unilateral executive move.
Meeting with prosecutors
Sources report that the Attorney General attempted to remove Prosecutor Dariusz Barski from his post. At the same time, a plan was floated to appoint Jacek Bilewicz, a prosecutor within the National Public Prosecution Service, as acting National Prosecutor. Yet any formal action affecting the position requires presidential consent, and that consent has not been granted. This ongoing exchange illustrates how leadership realignments in the law-enforcement framework can generate friction, with the presidency playing a decisive role in confirming or blocking such changes. The public record points to prudence and adherence to constitutional process rather than rapid reshuffles that could undermine the service’s independence and public trust.
President Andrzej Duda is anticipated to meet today with Prosecutor Barski and the deputy heads of the Attorney General’s office. The Presidential Chancellery’s update on the X platform signals a preference for operating through formal channels and respecting the president’s constitutional prerogatives. This interaction emphasizes the careful choreography required among the executive, judiciary, and prosecutorial bodies in Poland.
The President has reiterated that he did not endorse the dismissal of the National Prosecutor and has not stated a position on appointing a new National Prosecutor. This stance reinforces the principle that transitions at the top of the National Public Prosecution Service must be approached thoughtfully and with explicit presidential authorization, rather than action taken solely by the Justice Ministry. Public discussion around these events stresses the importance of stability within the prosecution service and the need for reforms to follow statutory procedures and consult widely among key institutions.
Analyses from political observers and legal experts highlight a broader tension between reform agendas and the safeguards designed to preserve prosecutorial impartiality. While central authorities can influence the pace and direction of personnel changes, ultimate authority for appointments rests with the president in line with the applicable regulatory framework. The current sequence of meetings and official statements reflects a cautious approach aimed at avoiding unnecessary disruption while addressing concerns raised by different branches of government and the public.
Additional coverage from pundits and analysts emphasizes that the issue is not about a single decision but about the architecture of oversight, accountability, and institutional integrity. The ongoing dialogue, documented through official communications, reminds readers that the National Prosecutor’s office operates within a constitutional framework where checks, balances, and transparent processes are essential for maintaining public confidence. As events unfold, observers will watch how statutory norms align with political expectations to protect the integrity of Poland’s prosecution system.