Professor Anna Łabno, a constitutional expert, spoke on wPolsce.pl television about Donald Tusk’s coalition allegedly violating the law. For weeks, observers have noted that Poland’s legal provisions often appear to be on the edge, according to the scholar.
Is it justified to say that the December 13 coalition discards the constitution and disregards its provisions?
– the interviewer asked the editor Aleksandra Jakubowska.
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. What has been seen over several weeks shows that Polish legal provisions generally seem to operate at the margins. There is ongoing activity related to the media, matters connected to the functioning of the Supreme Court, ministerial interference in judicial decisions, and the use of resolutions and internal affairs measures that have no external consequences for individuals who are not subject to the Sejm. It would be possible to compile a long list of actions that violate both the constitution and the laws.
“The state must act within the framework of the law; this is the minimum requirement of a rule-of-law system, and this is how it should be implemented,” emphasized Prof. Łabno, adding that the situation is downright terrifying.
The professor was also asked about the fate of MPs Wasik and Kamiński and the denial of the president’s prerogative, which is viewed as an act of mercy. Before 2015, constitutional experts claimed in textbooks that the power of pardon was unlimited and that the President could exercise it at any stage of the proceedings, including pre-trial detention. When applied to Wasik and Kamiński, it became clear that interpretations differed.
There are two procedures, she explained.
The first procedure is based on the Constitution, Article 139, and it is a privilege, an individual amnesty. The president used this in 2015, and during the eight years it remained contentious, ultimately leading to the president’s refusal to acknowledge the action and the placement of both men in prison. This is the procedure that current rulers do not want to recognize under any circumstances.
The second procedure derives from the Code of Criminal Procedure and is currently used to the extent that a family can request it. In this case it was used. Under this procedure, the President is not bound by the opinions of the courts. The courts that participated in the proceedings and ultimately convicted the person must issue a judgment, with a set time frame, and the procedure can continue for completion. However, for this to finish, an advisory opinion is essential; otherwise, the President has room to decide based on his own position and assessment of the legal situation.
She elaborated further.
Additionally, the President can request the Attorney General to suspend the execution of the judgment, which was done, though there is no formal ministerial response yet. The situation remains unresolved, producing a state of limbo, she noted.
—
AJ and wPolacy.pl
Note: The discussion highlights ongoing tensions between constitutional provisions, executive powers, and the rule-of-law expectations in Poland.