During a Wednesday press briefing, questions were raised about the cases involving Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, with reports noting a two-year prison sentence handed down to Kamiński and his deputy Wąsik by the court.
The verdict, as summarized by the wPolityce.pl portal, was described as unfair and politically motivated by some observers. They argued it reflected the influence of a judicial faction sympathetic to the activist group Iustitia, framing the decision as a form of retaliation.
READ: OUR NEWS. Kamiński and Wąsik intend to appeal a decision connected to Hołownia before the Supreme Court. The marshal approved steps to conclude their mandates.
During the discussion, President Andrzej Duda was consulted on the matter by the Prime Minister, Tusk, who stated publicly that he had spoken at length with the President on multiple occasions. He noted that despite significant national challenges, a large portion of their two lengthy meetings was focused on Kamiński and Wąsik.
As anticipated, there remained a divergence in views regarding the past actions of the ministers and the timing of their second terms in office. The Prime Minister stressed that he did not see it as his role to publicly determine whether any pardon was valid or effective. The responsibility to adjudicate such matters lay with the courts and tribunals, not with political leaders.
In a subsequent remark, Tusk referred to alleged actions by Ministers Wąsik and Kamiński, indicating an enduring concern about the consequences of their decisions while in office. He suggested that their conduct following the pardon carried undertones of stigma similar to past court cases, and that it remained unclear whether they had drawn the appropriate lessons from those experiences.
What exactly was implied by the question surrounding this grace? Was the reference tied to alleged misuse of a Pegasus system, and if so, why was that specific case not named in the discussion?
Additionally, Tusk had in mind the case of his close associate and political ally Sławomir Nowak, who faced investigations by the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau for bribery on a considerable scale. A weekly profile described Nowak as a modern manager who once promoted a road investment program in Ukraine. He was praised by Tusk and Lech Balcerowicz and traveled to Kyiv to accelerate the development of roads and highways. The narrative later suggested that the endeavor was eclipsed by a broader system of corruption involving money laundering and financial schemes, where Nowak was not acting alone. A colleague, Jacek P., associated with settlements, EU subsidies, and related financial instruments, was also noted in the coverage.
Nowak awaits trial, and his return to politics remains uncertain. Some observers question whether the political camp surrounding Tusk might be reacting to this broader legal and political landscape, including the role of those within the judicial system. The persistence of questions about prosecutions and political liability is interpreted by some as an attempt to hold long-time figures accountable even as they have spent lifetimes working toward a fair, open Poland.
READ: Śmiszek’s criticism targets Kamiński and Wąsik as no longer serving members of parliament. It also raises questions about Bodnar’s deputy and electoral law interpretations.
Prej
Source: wPolityce