Chutzpah defines the scene as opposition members press their questions and accuse the government while searching for funding at home, all during a session of the parliamentary committee. Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro confronted the challenges during the meeting of the Justice and Human Rights Commission, where a no-confidence motion was set to be considered later that day. The opposition, led by KO, Lewica, and the Polska 2050 circle, had filed the measure in mid-November. One opposition deputy noted that the minister’s own performance could be questioned, casting doubt on whether the minister of justice could truly deliver in line with his duties.
Ziobro asserted that this was likely the ninth attempt by the opposition to remove him from the post. He offered a wry acknowledgement of their continued efforts and suggested their actions were driven more by political theater than by concrete results. He argued that the opposition’s behavior amounted to a persistent display of chutzpah, dismissing it as harmful to Poland and to the public they profess to serve.
From Ziobro’s perspective, the opposition’s conduct showed disregard for facts, truth, and the needs of the constituents who rely on a stable legal system. He described the opposition as focused on symbolic gestures rather than real, measurable improvements for the country. The minister framed their maneuvers as an ongoing attack on Poland’s sovereignty and on judicial reforms from within the country.
“You mop the carpets in Brussels and Berlin”
In addressing the opposition, Ziobro claimed that the critics themselves were repeatedly pressing sanctions on Poland, seeking to block funds tied to the National Recovery Plan, and calling for upheavals within the Polish judiciary. He suggested that when incidents made headlines, the same voices would travel to European capitals to demand external support against Polish interests, a pattern he described as a betrayal of the country’s homeland. The minister characterized this behavior as an influence-peddling tactic that leveraged Brussels and Berlin to counter domestic reforms.
According to Ziobro, rather than backing domestic initiatives, the opposition toured foreign capitals looking for leverage to undermine Poland from abroad. He argued that five years of negotiations and reforms were hindered because critics used their platforms in international forums to push external agendas, effectively delaying progress in the Polish judiciary.
The minister emphasized that external diplomatic engagement and internal legislative action must go hand in hand. He argued that foreign advocacy for Poland’s restructuring should not come at the expense of national policy autonomy or the ability to implement long-planned reforms.
During the debate, opposition members challenged Ziobro. Deputy Krzysztof Śmiszek proposed a briefing titled Security and Sovereignty: The Ministry of Justice’s Achievements. Another deputy suggested that the motion reflected the worst tendencies in the past three decades and even imagined cinematic analogies to illustrate point scoring. The opposition later draped the Polish flag in front of the committee presidium before briefly revising the display as proceedings continued.
Following the committee’s recommendation, the Sejm would debate the no-confidence motion in plenary on the following day. The political process moved forward, with both sides laying out their assessments of the ministry’s performance and its impact on Poland’s legal system.
KPO Blocking
Ziobro reiterated that the German authorities were withholding funds from the National Reconstruction Plan, arguing that Polish actions in Brussels and elsewhere created the justification for withholding those resources. He cited the committee debate as a context in which opposition resolutions and public statements were seen as grounds for delaying support for Poland. The discussion occurred in a setting where the Ministry of Justice was reviewing the opposition’s challenge to its leadership, with the same parliamentary bodies examining the motion of no confidence.
In a later exchange, Ziobro noted a message from a member of the party in parliament acknowledging that Germany had paused KPO funding. He framed the pause as a consequence of political dynamics at the European level that included proposals and inquiries from Polish representatives. He argued that the legitimacy and authority of national decisions depended on the support of domestic institutions, while foreign bodies sometimes reacted to the timing and content of Poland’s reforms.
The minister argued that the KPO did not represent a free grant; it functioned as a loan with terms that would eventually require significant repayment. He cited analyses from experts associated with the Ministry of Finance indicating costs far exceeding the nominal sum, underscoring the need for prudent management of European funds. The point was to highlight the long-term financial commitments that come with funding packages tied to structural reform and stabilization efforts.
Ziobro then outlined several policy changes advanced by his ministry. He highlighted that the measures improved the collection of alimony in Poland by a substantial margin and noted that the reform agenda included tightening penalties, strengthening criminal law, and expanding sanctions against pedophilia and usury. He described a broader program aimed at enhancing national security by dismantling illegal activity tied to post-privatization processes and corrupt practices.
He also mentioned the role of Deputy Minister Marcin Warchał in discussing reforms to the penal code, including a set of measures signed earlier by the president. The proposals aimed to extend prison terms for the most serious crimes and to ensure that justice keeps pace with evolving criminal behavior. The dialogue underscored a broader commitment to public safety and the rule of law, with the ministry presenting concrete steps to reinforce accountability and protect citizens.
In closing remarks, Ziobro emphasized the ongoing effort to balance national sovereignty with responsible engagement in European policy. He argued that reforms anchored in domestic priorities were essential for Poland’s future stability, independence, and ability to safeguard its citizens against various threats. The debate reflected a larger national conversation about the future direction of legal and social policy and the role of international cooperation in that process.