During a recent press conference, Marta Kightley, Vice President of the National Bank of Poland, stated that the Board of Directors has informed key international institutions about threats against Prof. Adam Glapiński. The communication highlighted the concern over calls to bring the NBP president before the State Tribunal, a move that has surfaced in political discourse and is outlined in the Civic Coalition’s plan for the first 100 days of governance.
The accusations against President Glapiński appear inflated and political
Kightley described the justifications in the case as vague and politically motivated. She cautioned that acting on premises that are unrealistic would be damaging to the country, the institutional order, and the economy. She also noted that the NBP expects action from international institutions and confirmed planned meetings with their legal teams to assess the situation in Poland.
Last summer, opposition leader Donald Tusk publicly questioned Prof. Glapiński’s candidacy for a second term as president of the National Bank of Poland, accusing him of mismanaging the central bank and warning that if his party returned to power, Glapiński would be ousted. In July 2022, Tusk asserted at a Radom convention that Glapiński was not only incompetent and indecisive, but illegal, and that he would not remain in office if the Platform won the elections.
The underlying motive cited by opponents was to block Glapiński’s second term as a stance against Poland joining the Eurozone.
Tusk shifts the narrative
With changing circumstances, the rhetoric has shifted. There is no longer talk of forcibly removing the NBP president; instead, attention turns to bringing him before the State Tribunal, with politicians from the Platform, Ruch Hołownia, and PSL weighing in.
The accusations levelled against Glapiński include destabilizing the Polish zloty, indirectly funding the state budget through bond purchases, and interventions in the foreign exchange market that allegedly weakened the zloty and spurred inflation. The constitution does allow such a tribunal, but only if there is proven constitutional or legal violation in relation to the office held.
It is important to understand that the State Tribunal handles individual decisions and actions rather than broad policy choices. Decisions in monetary policy come from the Monetary Policy Council, a ten-member body, each voting on matters related to policy, while the NBP board comprises nine members, each with one vote. The question remains whether a collective decision, rather than a single action, is the proper subject of a tribunal inquiry.
Accusations that could affect Poland
Opposition figures publicly contest the independence of the central bank, a stance that carries potential consequences for Poland’s financial standing and credibility. Such disputes can influence market perceptions, potentially affecting the value of the zloty and the cost of Poland’s debt. The NBP’s status as part of the European System of Central Banks means its independence is protected by the European Central Bank and EU institutions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union, which recently acted on related matters involving the Polish central bank.
It is noted that the NBP Board has informed the ECB and other international financial bodies about the ongoing efforts to challenge central-bank independence. This broader engagement underscores the seriousness with which the matter is treated at the international level.
Context and constitutional framework
The central elements here involve the balance between political oversight and independent central banking. While the State Tribunal can address specific constitutional or legal breaches, central-bank independence remains a keystone of Poland’s economic framework. The dialogue between domestic actors and international institutions signals the high stakes involved in any potential constitutional review.