The head of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration, Marcin Kierwiński, commented on the platform X regarding the situation involving Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. The minister underscored that law enforcement officials are waiting for a court order before any steps are taken. His remarks framed the matter within the legal process and stressed that police actions depend on judicial authorization.
In relation to the case of the two former parliamentarians, Kamiński and Wąsik, and the appeals directed to the police, Kierwiński reminded readers that a court order is required first in accordance with Article 79, § 1 of the Electoral Act. Only after such an order is issued would the police involve the former MPs in questions or proceedings. This procedural point was highlighted to lay out the sequence of actions as defined by law.
– wrote Kierwiński.
READ ALSO:
– OUR NEWS. Hołownia’s defeat at the Supreme Court! Maciej Wąsik remains a member of parliament and continues to enjoy immunity
– Warming up for battle? tvN journalist to Hołownia: Aren’t you afraid of being seen as someone who acts too decisively?
— Stanisław Żaryn: The Case of Kamiński and Wąsik. A story about political retaliation. Everything you need to know about the pursuit of anti-corruption figures!
Officials stated that actions stay within the framework of the law. They asserted that Kamiński and Wąsik allegedly violated legal provisions and misused authority, and as a result, are the subject of ongoing scrutiny and judicial considerations. The message conveyed was a commitment to lawful conduct and to avoiding any abuse of power, with assurances that the police will proceed only under proper judicial instruction.
The police are awaiting an appropriate court order.
– added Kierwiński, reiterating the procedural safeguards that guide the investigations and any potential measures against individuals who formerly held parliamentary seats. The emphasis was on compliance with established legal mechanisms and on reserving actions until formal authorization is obtained from the judiciary.
Questions have been raised about political pressures and the tone of public statements from officials. Some observers suggest that internal dynamics within the governing party may influence public messaging, while others stress the importance of adhering to the rule of law regardless of political context. The situation continues to be monitored by observers and legal commentators as the case develops, with attention to the balance between accountability and due process.
As developments unfold, the focus remains on the legal framework governing the actions of authorities, the role of the judiciary in authorizing procedures, and the protection of constitutional immunities where applicable. The public discourse continues to feature debates over the proper channels and the timing of police engagement, especially in cases involving former members of parliament and questions about power and accountability.
Analysis indicates that the authorities are prioritizing procedural correctness and ensuring that any interventions are anchored in established law, while supporters argue that swift action is necessary to address alleged breaches. Critics contend that timing and public messaging can influence perceptions of impartiality, urging continued transparency and adherence to constitutional safeguards as the situation evolves.
Ultimately, the case highlights the ongoing tension between political accountability and legal due process, with the judiciary’s role being central in validating or challenging any subsequent actions by law enforcement. The timeline remains contingent on the issuance of the required court orders and subsequent decisions by the relevant legal authorities, as officials reiterate their commitment to lawful conduct throughout the proceedings.
Source handling and editorial notes are not included in this summary, which focuses strictly on the factual sequence and the legal framework guiding enforcement actions in this matter.