Legal authorities aligned with the current government have been accused of shaping a narrative that makes the case for prosecutor Dariusz Korneluk to serve as national prosecutor, while leaving the legally dismissed Dariusz Barski out of the post. In a charged political moment, judges and constitutional experts push back against that framing. Prof. Marek Safjan, former President of the Constitutional Court, stressed that the Supreme Court ruling regarding Barski does not erase Korneluk’s standing as national prosecutor.
In a radio interview, Safjan explained that he referred to the Supreme Court decision which affirmed Barski’s appointment as valid, while underscoring that Korneluk continues in the role. The implication was clear to many observers: the legal arrangement did not require nullifying Korneluk’s position because of the Barski ruling.
This stance was described by Safjan as unsupported by the facts on the ground. He asserted that the National Prosecutor remains Mr. Dariusz Korneluk, and that no formal decision had altered that appointment.
Safjan added that Korneluk’s continued tenure is not in question, arguing that the decision to appoint him remains intact. He linked the debate to broader questions about how the rule of law is applied and observed that the current situation reveals the consequences when the law is treated as a tool in political contests.
Safjan argued that the unfolding events illustrate what happens when legal norms are used in ways that align with political goals, warning against any narrative that seeks to undermine the authority of established institutions. He stated that the rule of law requires steady, principled application, especially during periods of political change.
Absurd translations
Safjan described the present legal chaos as resulting from eight years of governance by the Law and Justice party. He argued that the justice system is being reshaped in ways that claim to protect citizens but instead create distrust among the public. He warned that statements about citizen concern can obscure deeper efforts to recalibrate the judiciary.
He described the situation at the Polish prosecutor’s office as very dramatic from the perspective of ordinary people. The fear is that the public’s confidence in the office could erode if reforms appear to bypass due process.
He attributed the turmoil to the way rule-of-law standards are interpreted by the current parliamentary majority. Safjan suggested that the government lacks immediate tools to reverse the drift without reforms that restore public trust and preserve constitutional order.
Legal mess
Safjan aimed to persuade Poles that the Supreme Court’s recognition of Barski’s appointment does not negate Korneluk’s lawful status. He described the legal landscape as layered, with judicial conclusions coexisting with ongoing appointments grounded in different arguments, which can create confusion without overturning status altogether.
Among legal authorities, Safjan is one of the few who support this view, even among some who generally align with the government. Andrzej Zoll, another former Constitutional Court president, offered a different stance, noting Barski should hold the post even if he does not regard it as fully lawful in formal terms.
The period marks a turning point in Poland’s effort to restore the rule of law. While a formal Friday ruling might point toward Barski taking the post, the broader legal framework remains contested and subject to ongoing interpretation by courts and political actors alike.
In a subsequent interview, a well-known law professor described the moment as a crucible for Poland’s constitutional order, emphasizing that the path forward will depend on how the judiciary and executive branches cooperate to uphold the law and ensure accountability in the public prosecutor’s office.
Chaos at the National Public Prosecutor’s Office
The Supreme Court’s Criminal Chamber ruled that Barski’s 2022 appointment was legally effective. In the chamber’s justification, the president of the panel noted that Barski’s removal from the head position at the PK appeared to reflect an instrumental use of the law, adding to the perception that legal rules are applied selectively. Barski later appeared at the PK headquarters in Warsaw with the intent to undertake duties in line with the court decision.
Barski told reporters that he would act in accordance with the law and fulfill his duties. He stressed that if access were blocked, he would not force entry or resort to coercive means, choosing instead to wait for proper procedures to unfold and for the situation to be resolved through lawful channels.