Prosecution Office Personnel Changes Spar Over Legal Boundaries

Authorities Clash Over Prosecution Office Removals

Patryk Jaki, a Member of the European Parliament for Sovereign Poland, argued that the dismissal of ten regional and district prosecutors did not follow the Public Prosecution Act. He warned that a resolution would come in due time and suggested that political leadership would not endure forever without accountability.

A notice appeared on the Ministry of Justice site stating that ten prosecutors were removed from their delegations and roles.

Attorney General Adam Bodnar, working closely with Acting National Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz, has been implementing a program of reforms within the Prosecutor’s Office aimed at restoring these services to citizens, according to the ministry.

— emphasized the Ministry of Justice.

Patryk Jaki spoke at a press conference in the Sejm, noting that under the Law on Public Prosecutions, prosecutors at regional and district levels are appointed and dismissed by the National Prosecution Service after presenting candidates to the appropriate assembly of prosecutors.

What happened, he said, did not follow that process. He said he was announcing cancellations and challenged the minister involved.

“Do we want Poland to resemble an African country?”

Jaki criticized the absence of a formal process, arguing that neither the Assembly of Prosecutors nor the National Prosecution Service had acted to cancel appointments, and that a unilateral announcement by Bodnar had effectively overridden established procedures. He warned that if legal norms are treated as optional and constitutional provisions are not binding, the freedom of citizens could be undermined.

He also asserted that those who adapt to what he described as lawlessness would face consequences, and that a future reckoning would come for any actions seen as criminal under existing law. The language reflected a strong stance against what he labeled as political interference in prosecutorial duties.

The politician reiterated that the goal was to prevent a situation in which legal norms could be dismissed by mere declarations, asserting that explicit laws and formal authority should govern such personnel changes. The message implied that the legitimacy of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office rests on adherence to statutory procedures.

In the wake of the ministry’s posting about the ten dismissals, a statement attributed to Prosecutor Dariusz Barski and other deputies of the Attorney General appeared on the National Prosecutor’s Office website. The statement asserted that appointing and dismissing regional and district prosecutors, as well as transferring a prosecutor within the office, fall within the legal powers of the National Public Prosecutor, and that these acts cannot be assumed by the Attorney General.

The regulations cited align with the Public Prosecution Service Act, which specifies the scope of powers concerning such appointments and dismissals.

According to official remarks, the National Prosecutor is Dariusz Barski, a point emphasized in the exchange of statements surrounding the personnel actions.

The actions taken by Attorney General Bodnar to remove the First Deputy National Prosecutor were described as unlawful by some critics, who argued that they circumvented the provisions of the Public Prosecution Service Act, particularly Article 14, which requires the President’s written consent for certain changes in the office of the National Prosecutor.

An Opposition Perspective on the Prosecution Service

On January 12, Prime Minister Donald Tusk entrusted duties related to the National Prosecutor to Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz. The Justice Ministry later indicated that during discussions with Prosecutor Dariusz Barski, Bodnar presented a document stating that a prior reinstatement by the former Attorney General had no legal effect due to applicable regulations.

The ministry later clarified that from the date of the transfer of the Attorney General position, Dariusz Barski would remain retired and unable to hold the title of National Minister to exercise Prosecutor duties. The National Public Prosecutor’s Office maintained its position that Barski remained the national prosecutor.

Bodnar argued that the attorney general, as the supervisor of all prosecutors, possesses the authority to assign tasks. He also indicated that a two-month period would be set for an open competition to fill the position held by the national prosecutor.

The discussion surrounding these personnel changes reflected deeper tensions between political leadership and prosecutorial independence as defined by the law.

— End of summary — [citation: wPolityce]