Across Poland, debates around the federal government and the judiciary have intensified. Justice Minister Adam Bodnar found himself defending Prime Minister Donald Tusk after the premier’s controversial step to withdraw a co-signature drew sharp criticism from figures like Professor Andrzej Zoll and veteran journalist Monika Olejnik. Bodnar insisted on television that Tusk had a solid legal basis, even as some lawmakers and commentators questioned the move. Is this interpretation enough to settle the question for the public?
He waved a co-signature
The Prime Minister announced a notable action, signaling the withdrawal of the co-signature as part of a broader effort to address concerns raised by judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court.
The public discourse included remarks about the timing and implications of this decision, with One report noting that the decision followed a complaint from Civil Chamber judges about the process of appointing a key judicial figure.
Meanwhile, discussions circulated about whether the cancellation of the co-signature would affect the public perception of integrity and constitutional fidelity. These conversations reflected the heated atmosphere surrounding judicial appointments and executive actions.
In a separate development, a statement from the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw outlined that a complaint concerning the President’s appointment of the Chairman of the Assembly of Judges of the Civil Chamber had been addressed. The court explained that the complaint should first be submitted to the body whose action or omission is in question, before reaching higher authorities.
The broader public reaction highlighted debates about procedure and authority, with pundits weighing the appropriateness of shifting responsibility and the symbolism of preferring procedural correctness over expediency.
Prof. Zoll did not comfort Tusk
Prime Minister Tusk faced pointed criticism from legal scholars, including Professor Andrzej Zoll, a former Constitutional Court president and former ombudsman. Zoll described the move as formally unjustified and argued there was no constitutional basis for revoking the co-signature, contending that the two-judge motion cited by supporters did not constitute a legitimate foundation for such a change.
He suggested that the decision to appoint a judge as president of the Civil Chamber could not be deemed constitutional if it relied on an action that compromised institutional independence. Zoll’s stance underscored a tension between executive actions and judicial independence, a core theme in contemporary political discourse.
Even Olejnik against the Prime Minister!
Justice Minister Bodnar confronted the same crosswinds of opinion when addressing the matter on television. The debate included a sharp exchange with Monika Olejnik, who questioned the minister’s interpretation of the events. Bodnar maintained that the matter involved legitimate administrative steps and that the procedural framework allowed for corrections if complaints arose during the process.
Olejnik’s remark reflected deeper concerns about accountability and the optics of the Prime Minister taking a rare step of withdrawing a signature that had previously been affixed to a formal act. The dialogue captured how media scrutiny intersects with constitutional questions in real time.
Minister Bodnar tries to defend his boss
Bodnar explained that he did not endorse Zoll’s assessment and noted that complaints had been filed with administrative courts, which could influence how the act would be interpreted in the near term. He referenced legal provisions governing administrative proceedings, pointing out that corrections can be made when warranted by the statutory framework.
He clarified that the existence of complaints does not automatically invalidate the underlying act, and he emphasized that the Prime Minister acted within the scope of legal possibilities to protect the process ahead of any anticipated election of the Civil Chamber’s president.
According to Bodnar, moving forward without the co-signature could introduce a legal defect, complicating the status of the eventual president and potentially affecting the legitimacy of the chamber’s leadership during the interim period.
Clear position from the Supreme Court
A spokesperson for the Supreme Court stated that the meeting to appoint judges of the Civil Chamber would proceed as scheduled, despite what was described as an unprecedented challenge to the court’s independence. The briefing affirmed that the appointment is a presidential prerogative, not a Prime Ministerial command, reinforcing the separation of powers in the decision-making process.
It was stressed that by signing the presidential decree, the Prime Minister accepts responsibility before Parliament for the act. The spokesperson also noted that the co-signature itself cannot simply be withdrawn retroactively, as the action has legal consequences and may bind future proceedings and appointments.
Observers noted a rare moment where the legal community publicly questioned the political leadership’s approach. Critics argued that the Prime Minister’s maneuvers risk creating chaos and potentially undermining constitutional norms.
The ongoing coverage highlighted how interpretations of legality and constitutional obligation can diverge among judges, politicians, and commentators, raising broader questions about the balance between executive flexibility and judicial independence.
Additional analysis pointed to the importance of following established procedures and honoring institutional boundaries, even amid political pressure. The evolving story continues to shape public understanding of how Poland’s executive and judicial branches interact in moments of friction.