The Commission for the Study of Russian Influences does not infringe on the separation of powers. Ultimately, any ruling can be submitted for judicial review, and it is the court that resolves such questions, according to government spokesman Piotr Müller.
President Duda’s decision
President Andrzej Duda announced on Monday that he had signed the law establishing a commission to examine Russian influence and would submit it to the Constitutional Tribunal.
During a subsequent press conference, a question was raised about whether commission members would gain excessive authority, including access to classified information or exemptions from secrecy.
Müller explained that commission members are chosen by the Sejm, a body elected through democratic processes. He noted that many high offices are filled this way, citing the ombudsman, the president of the National Bank of Poland, and the judges of the Constitutional Tribunal as examples.
This arrangement provides democratic legitimacy for the position, Müller stated. If anyone questions this or calls it inappropriate, he urged looking at the Constitution and recognizing that several sensitive yet important bodies are appointed by the Sejm. The elected individuals, he added, are endowed with parliamentary trust.
He also emphasized that judicial review remains possible for the commission’s decisions, ensuring checks and balances.
He noted that the reprivatization commission faced early objections but later produced many favorable rulings that clashed with Warsaw’s reprivatization lobby. He described protests as aimed at a powerful lobbying network that had engaged in illegal and unethical actions in Warsaw for years.
Report on the activities of the committee
Müller was asked when the committee would present its work results, specifically the date of September 17, and whether a person found guilty could participate in parliamentary elections.
If the committee invokes legal remedies or chooses to terminate, it would lead to an appeal to the court. In such a case, the individual would continue to perform duties until a court decision is issued. Müller expressed disbelief at the concerns raised by some commentators.
He was also asked about potential propaganda use by Minsk or Moscow. He responded that if Russia or Belarus needed to leverage anything, it would be to highlight the influence of individuals who affected Polish decisions in energy and other areas, potentially used for blackmail. He noted that authorities investigating Russian influences operate in France and Germany as well.
The government spokesman added that the commission has not breached the separation of powers because the final decision can be appealed to a court, where a judge will determine the outcome. This sober reminder underpins the procedural safeguards in place.
In relation to the ongoing discussion, Müller referenced a public discussion about the president signing the law and sending it to the Constitutional Tribunal, suggesting the need for a broader debate about establishing similar bodies at the European level.
There was a call for such entities to appear at the EU level or within individual member states to study Russian influences, though he acknowledged uneven willingness across countries. Instances cited included France and parts of Germany, where similar concerns have been raised.
According to Müller, reports of corruption within the European Parliament demonstrate that Russian influence can propagate through different channels. He warned against underestimating such risks and stressed the necessity of persistent scrutiny to safeguard European institutions.
The law establishing the State Commission for the Study of Russian Influence on the Internal Security of the Republic of Poland will face careful examination, as will its potential implications for the European Commission. Müller argued that any lobbying against clarifying this issue in Europe would be expected, whereas the goal of the law is to illuminate dangerous Russian influence across energy, economic sectors, and related matters that may have persisted for years.
He asserted that Russian interests have possibly extended into EU institutions, and the opponents who downplay this may attempt to distort the law’s meaning. All commission decisions include judicial review, so concerns about EU fears should be considered against the instrument of legal oversight.
Committee work schedule
Müller was asked about planning the committee’s work. He stressed that defining the schedule lies with parliament and indicated that it could be possible to elect committee members at the next Sejm session or the one following it.
He expressed hope that the next Sejm session would enable progress. Earlier this year, the Sejm approved legislation establishing the commission, while the Senate had challenged it, and the Sejm eventually voted to proceed despite the Senate’s position. The committee’s remit includes analyzing official activities, sharing information with third parties, identifying interference in board decisions, and examining contracts or the use of public or corporate funds.
Potential orders from the committee could include revoking an administrative decision tied to Russian influence, prohibiting certain functions involving public funds for up to ten years, and suspending security clearances for a decade. These measures illustrate the breadth of oversight contemplated by the commission. This overview reflects ongoing discussions and procedural developments related to the commission’s mandate.
Source: wPolityce