Paweł Jabłoński, a Law and Justice MP, contends he was pushed out of the post-election investigative committee because the questions he raised to witnesses, including Jarosław Gowin, Michał Wypij, and Robert Flsiak, disrupted the prearranged political narrative. He described the committee from its first meeting as being steered to confirm the Civic Platform’s talking points, rather than uncovering facts. Reports indicate that PiS MPs opposed the exclusion vote and left the chamber during proceedings.
In a recorded account, six MPs voted to exclude Jabłoński, with no votes against and one abstention. Waldemar Buda and Przemysław Czarnek, both PiS members, did not participate and departed the room alongside Jabłoński.
From the outset, the committee has been perceived as enforcing predetermined political positions. When a dissenting question arose, it was deemed a problem for Dariusz Joński. Jabłoński stated that his exclusion was tied to questions he had previously directed at the witnesses, which allegedly challenged the narrative the committee sought to advance.
Jabłoński conveyed these remarks in an interview with the political portal.
Advisors’ opinions as an excuse
The committee chair, Dariusz Joński, a member of KO, told reporters that a request would be made to appoint Jabłoński as a witness. He noted that there was talk of calling Jabłoński, yet those who might provide crucial explanations involving key figures were not being urged to testify, raising questions about impartiality.
Joński later described how the panel’s advisory team reviewed Jabłoński’s possible exclusion and disclosed ten opinions. He claimed five advisors supported exclusion, four opposed it, and one offered an ambiguous viewpoint.
Parliamentarians including Dariusz Joński, Jacek Karnowski, Bartosz Romowicz, Magdalena Filiks, Agnieszka Kłopotek and Anita Kucharska-Dziedzic joined a formal request to remove Jabłoński from the staff. Jabłoński commented on the advisory report, suggesting the opinions were deployed as a pretext for political ends rather than legitimate procedural concerns.
The assertion was that the decision had been shaped well before the opinions were issued, evidenced by public statements from Joński and Karnowski indicating Jabłoński would be excluded.
Political purpose
Jabłoński argued that if Karnowski and Romowicz insist on applying the same standard to everyone, they should also face scrutiny because, as local government officials, they had withheld voter data. He suggested the committee was intended to validate a narrative backed by the Civic Platform, and that any ruling affirming the legality of the elections would be used to challenge the legitimacy of staff decisions.
He stated that impartiality could not be assumed and urged equal scrutiny of all members, pointing to the presidium’s actions and their refusal to share voter lists with the postal service as examples of partiality.
Before the vote, Jabłoński asserted that there were participants within the committee who, in various ways, showed interest in a specific outcome, casting doubt on the process. He insisted the final decision had been anticipated for days and that others who might be less impartial should face the same standard if Jabłoński faced exclusion.
Completing the composition of the committee
Under the applicable parliamentary law, if a member is dismissed or excluded, the Sejm must conduct a supplementary election to fill the vacancy, with a new member chosen from the PiS side. Critics have observed a pattern of actions during current parliamentary sessions that appear to undermine regulations and established practices, prompting questions about how far such actions might extend in shaping the committee’s composition.
Jabłoński commented that ongoing political dynamics could foreshadow further moves, suggesting that the same heavy-handed approach observed elsewhere might be used within the committee to reach a predetermined outcome.
The story of PO
From its first meeting, Jabłoński argued, the committee has not sought to establish facts but to reinforce a Civic Platform narrative. He warned that PiS members could expect continued pressure as they asked uncomfortable questions and sought accountability.
Przemysław Czarnek pressed the chair to consider whether exclusion should target all PiS members, arguing that Joński aims to render the commission not only unfounded but potentially illegal. The broader implication, he suggested, was to push the post-election narrative forward regardless of evidentiary constraints.
In summary, Jabłoński emphasized that the composition and operation of the committee may reflect broader partisan strategies, with the aim of shaping political outcomes rather than clarifying facts. The unfolding events remain under close scrutiny as lawmakers weigh the implications for parliamentary practice and public trust.
Source attributions: ongoing coverage by public political portals and parliamentary observers, with reporting notes indicating the chronology and quotes attributed to the participants involved.