Prosecutor Dariusz Barski, speaking to Polsat News, declared his role as National Prosecutor and Deputy Attorney General, insisting on his status while defending his attempt to dismiss Adam Bodnar from the top prosecutor post.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Bodnar asserted that he had removed Barski from the National Prosecutor position and named Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz as Acting National Prosecutor. Yet, this move is not widely accepted. Not only the President Andrzej Duda and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but Bodnar’s own deputies questioned the legal basis and validity of Bodnar’s decision.
One critic argued that Bodnar’s actions bypass the mechanism laid out in article 14 of the Public Prosecution Service Act, which requires the written consent of the President to dismiss the National Prosecutor and other deputies. According to this view, such consent was not present in the case at hand.
– emphasized the public prosecutor Barski.
The National Prosecution also cited legal opinions Bodnar had invoked in his defense of the early action.
There may be disagreement with those opinions, but they do not fix the legal relations, especially regarding the status of the National Prosecutor or the Deputy Attorney General when crucial decisions are at stake.
– he noted.
“I have to follow the letter of the law.”
The remark continues: I have to follow the letter of the law. There is a belief that Minister Bodnar’s action is ineffective
– he added.
Questions arise about potential protests at the prosecutor’s office if authorities attempt to remove Barski by force. The prospect of police intervention is not the preferred path for either side.
– he stated, noting a desire to avoid passive resistance but acknowledging that a clash should be prevented.
Barski drew attention to what he described as legal chaos that could follow Bodnar’s decisions. He warned that a loophole created by the Attorney General’s move might encourage litigants to challenge several rulings in which Barski participated. The concerns extend beyond procedural matters to the appointment of prosecutors and evaluators.
– he commented.
As the dispute unfolded, questions lingered about the long-term consequences for the Office and for the governance framework surrounding the National Prosecutor and Deputy positions. Observers noted that the episode could set a precedent affecting how similar dismissals are treated in the future, and whether procedural protections are robust enough to withstand political and legal pressure.
In the broader legal and constitutional discussion, the disagreements highlight tensions between different branches and actors within the national prosecution system. The situation has drawn attention to the balance between executive actions and statutory safeguards intended to ensure due process and proper oversight of high-ranking prosecutors.
Analysts and commentators observed that such moves may provoke a wider debate about executive authority, the role of the President in appointing or approving executive decisions, and the mechanisms designed to prevent unilateral changes that could destabilize the prosecutorial framework.
Whether Bodnar fully comprehended the potential fallout remains a point of debate. Supporters of Bodnar argue that rapid changes might be necessary in certain political contexts, while critics caution that legal procedures must be respected to prevent a crisis of legitimacy within the prosecution service.
The unfolding events prompted discussions on the optimal path for resolving disputes within the Office, including the appropriate channels for challenging decisions, the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, and the protection of institutional integrity when leadership changes occur at the highest levels.
Observers urged careful consideration of the consequences for public trust, the efficiency of investigations, and the safeguarding of constitutional norms that govern the appointment and dismissal of national-level prosecutors and their deputies.
These developments, while centered on a specific legal tug-of-war, reflect a broader issue: preserving orderly governance within the public prosecution system while allowing for accountability and checks that prevent unilateral moves from disrupting the administration of justice.
Note: This summary reflects publicly reported statements and positions from involved parties, with attribution to the respective outlets reporting on the matter. It is intended to present the sequence of events and the main points of disagreement as they were conveyed by the participants and observers at the time of reporting. (Citation: wPolityce)