Łukasz Piebiak, former deputy justice minister, appeared as a guest on wPolsce.pl and voiced strong criticism of what he described as a political faction within the judiciary. He argued that today this faction is used by ordinary criminals to pursue favorable outcomes.
READ ALSO:
– “Faction” on the criminal side. Courts broadly suspend sentences, delay rulings, and overturn decisions.
Piebiak was asked about the actions of Judge Piotr Gąciarek, who repeatedly issues orders that challenge the rulings of other judges. These judges were nominated by the current National Judicial Council, a body at the center of ongoing discussions about judicial appointments and oversight.
The remarks triggered a sense of disbelief. Piebiak suggested that Article 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, intended to outline legitimate grounds for appeal, has become a vehicle for activists from justice campaigns such as Iustitia and Themis to vent political frustrations through formal resolutions.
Piebiak stressed that the issues he raised go beyond ordinary appeals. He acknowledged that both criminal and civil procedures contain shortcomings that can prompt withdrawals, but questioned what kind of serious misconduct was really being described. He asked whether the real motive is a dislike of a certain president or a grudge against the National Judicial Council for political reasons, perhaps aimed at challenging every procedural decision made by judges involved in the council’s appointment process.
Asked about the situation by a former Deputy Attorney General, Piebiak asserted that the problem is not primarily legal but political imagery—people in robes with an emblem on their chests shaping public opinion. He warned that such behavior harms the justice system and colors the perception of the work done by thousands of generally honest and diligent judges.
Piebiak emphasized that judges should be legalists who adhere to established procedures rather than stepping into political agendas. He noted that the disciplinary framework in place has been dismantled in part and that this contributed to a lack of accountability for judges. He pointed to the National Court Register as a system that has endured constitutional review and argued that a judge must respect the framework of judicial appointments and the law, regardless of personal views. Society, he said, expects predictability in court decisions and clear signals about what to expect from the judiciary.
Piebiak concluded by reiterating that the core issue is the failure of the disciplinary liability system, which he believes has been weakened with considerable involvement from international colleagues and the judiciary itself. He urged a return to a robust standard where judges uphold the law and refrain from substituting political aims for legal reasoning.
— The discussion reflects a broader debate about the balance between judicial independence and accountability, and how legal professionals communicate realities of the court system to the public. The conversation continues to shape opinions on how disciplinary oversight should function and what expectations citizens should hold for the courts.
[Citation: wPolityce]