Presidential Pardons: How Poland Could Handle Kamiński and Wąsik
Following a final court ruling, the President did not invoke the constitutionally grounded right to pardon for Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. Instead, he opted to pursue the procedural path outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, a choice explained by Minister Małgorzata Paprocka during a Sunday interview on Radio ZET.
During the exchange, Paprocka was pressed on why the President, who could have issued a clemency act tied directly to Article 139 of the Constitution for PiS politicians convicted last December, did not choose that route. She pointed to a 2015 precedent when the President granted pardons to the former heads of the Central Anticorruption Bureau, noting that it was a personal amnesty not described in the Code of Criminal Procedure and grounded in constitutional provisions.
Paprocka emphasized that, in the entire 1997 to present constitutional era, there has never been a time when a final verdict issued under the Constitution was immediately followed by a direct invocation of such an act outside the standard procedure. She argued that after a sentence becomes final, the whole process falls under the Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of previous pardons or political considerations. This, she said, is a critical distinction in the current case as it shapes how the pardon process should be conducted and understood by courts, politicians, and legal scholars alike.
According to Paprocka, the merit of the constitutional pardon under Article 139 would likely be undermined if the path chosen by the President did not follow the proper procedural framework. She argued that the act of mercy, if granted without a formal process, would not enjoy broad acceptance or legitimacy, which is why the President chose the shortest compliant route within the presidential procedure while ensuring full legal validity in line with the statute in force since 1997.
In her view, this approach guarantees that the remedy aligns with current law and avoids potential challenges to the decision from political actors, the judiciary, or legal doctrine. Paprocka described this as a pragmatic move designed to ensure clarity and compliance with the legal framework that governs clemency and related proceedings.
This is presented as the most direct method available today, initiating proceedings through the presidential framework with the Attorney General serving as the central official authorizing and guiding the process to its conclusion under the law in force. She stressed the importance of partnering with the Attorney General to achieve a transparent and legally sound outcome.
The minister also addressed whether the Attorney General would influence future decisions regarding the pardon. If Bodnar, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, were to decide anew on Kamiński and Wąsik’s release, Paprocka said it would not hinge on reviving the 2015 pardon. Instead, the current approach would remain focused on the processes now in motion, and Bodnar has not engaged the President in any direct manner on this matter.
She noted that Bodnar has not requested a meeting or pressed for a change in direction. The President is proceeding under a clearly defined procedure aimed at reaching a definite position, She added. It is hard to imagine that the President would dismiss his earlier assessment from 2015, she suggested, framing the current proceedings as a continuity rather than a departure from precedent.
Paprocka claimed that any doubts about the President’s stance are essentially attempts to reinterpret the situation. If given the chance to pause the sentences of Kamiński and Wąsik today, she asserted, the President would likely take it, yet such a pause rests with the Attorney General who bears full responsibility for the ongoing steps in this case.
On December 20, 2023, the Warsaw District Court sentenced Kamiński and Wąsik to two years in prison for abuse of power in connection with the so-called 2007 land scandal. Weeks earlier, both PiS politicians were taken into custody following police action. On January 11, at the request of their spouses, the President announced the initiation of pardon proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure and requested the Attorney General to suspend the execution of the sentence and to release them from custody for the duration of the pardon process.
The public discussion around this matter has included reflections on past opinions regarding presidential pardons. One voice, quoted from a 2015 publication, suggested that pardons could be granted after an unlawful conviction, a claim that has fueled ongoing debate among policymakers and commentators. Another voice from a former party senator described Kamiński and Wąsik as political prisoners and called the President a ruthlessly ideological figure, highlighting the polarized nature of the national conversation around clemency and justice.
Source: wPolityce
Bodnar’s role
The minister was asked whether, should the Minister of Justice and Attorney General Adam Bodnar decide today to release Kamiński and Wąsik, the President would reference the 2015 pardon and whether the current form of clemency would persist. Paprocka responded that Bodnar has not confronted the President in any way on this matter. He has not requested a meeting, she added. The President has begun the proceedings under a clear framework with the goal of obtaining a definitive position, she stated. It would be hard to imagine the President doubting the assessment he issued in 2015, she concluded. In her view, any hesitation would amount to seeking loopholes that do not exist within the present legal structure. Only the Attorney General can act today, and he bears full responsibility for what unfolds at this stage of the process.