A heated exchange over a presidential pardon and the role of the Attorney General
The Polish president criticized Attorney General Adam Bodnar for not authorizing an early release of ministers Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik, despite ongoing pardon proceedings. The president stated that Bodnar could have granted a humanitarian release while the pardon process progressed, but did not, and he described Bodnar’s actions in strong terms. The president reiterated that the pardon he had requested in 2015 remained in effect and that Kamiński and Wąsik were still detained, underscoring that social tensions surrounding their imprisonment influenced the decision to invoke the pardon procedure as outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The president noted that the pardon proceedings had been conducted in full.
According to the president, the attorney general’s advice arrived after nearly two weeks. The president expressed regret that Bodnar, despite a clear written request and his appeal, failed to meet the standard set by Article 568 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which grants powers to suspend the execution of a sentence. The president called the delay difficult to understand on a human level.
“From a human point of view it is incomprehensible to me.”
The president emphasized that the attorney general could have released Wąsik and Kamiński from prison temporarily for humanitarian reasons and to maintain public peace until the pardon process concluded. Despite pleas, ongoing health struggles for Minister Kamiński, a hunger strike, and his hospitalization, Bodnar did not grant the release. The president remarked with disappointment that Bodnar, who has a background with rights organizations, did not extend this humane gesture. The president underscored that such a step would have aligned with longstanding commitments to human rights and the social responsibilities of public office.
In closing remarks, the president reflected on the broader implications of the disagreement, underscoring the need for timely and compassionate action in tense political moments. He voiced concern over the seeming reluctance to act in the spirit of public service, especially when health and humanitarian considerations are at stake.
The unfolding situation has prompted commentary and reflections within political circles, with many noting the importance of balancing legal processes with human realities. Observers have suggested that the decision surrounding pardons is a complex intersection of law, mercy, and the practicalities of governance under pressure.
The discourse surrounding these events has touched on the responsibilities of the office of the president, the duties of the attorney general, and the expectations of the public for fair and humane treatment during periods of political turbulence. Analysts have pointed out that pardons carry significant symbolic and legal weight, shaping perceptions of justice and mercy in the country’s constitutional framework. The discussions also highlight how health circumstances and public sentiment can influence and complicate the execution of executive powers in a democracy.
As events continued to unfold, commentators urged careful consideration of precedent and the potential ramifications for future pardon decisions. They emphasized that transparent processes and timely decisions help preserve confidence in the rule of law and the legitimacy of executive actions, especially when high-profile figures are involved.