Senior figures in the office, including the First Deputy Attorney General Dariusz Barski and other deputy attorneys general, have appealed to Minister of Justice and Attorney General Adam Bodnar to withdraw the recent order redefining how the National Prosecutor’s Office operates. They describe the measure as legally flawed and potentially damaging to the Public Prosecution Service’s functioning, urging a reconsideration in light of the concerns raised in a formal letter.
The signatories said Bodnar’s January order, which sets the scope of activity for the Attorney General, his deputies, the National Prosecutor’s Office, and other prosecutors teams, contains fundamental inconsistencies and contradictions. They argue it ignores the experience and powers of the deputy attorneys general and highlights numerous shortcomings that justify withdrawal. They also expressed willingness to cooperate on a new regulation that aligns with legal practice and established procedures.
As examples of the disputed decisions, they pointed to removing supervision over judicial proceedings at the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Constitutional Court from Deputy Prosecutor General Robert Hernand, who has been engaged with this work for fourteen years. They noted the assignment of supervisory responsibility to Deputy Prosecutor General Krzysztof Sierak, who has long specialized in supervising preparatory procedures.
They described the removal of supervision over the Smolensk disaster investigation from Deputy Prosecutor General Krzysztof Urbaniak as incomprehensible. Urbaniak had been involved in that investigation for more than 1.5 years following the death in 2022 of Deputy Prosecutor General Marek Pasionek. The task was handed to the Deputy Attorney General Beata Marczak, who oversees anti-organized crime and corruption efforts.
The deputies warned that implementing the order could irreversibly undermine the legality and effectiveness of Public Prosecution Service actions, even if only based on constitutional provisions. They stressed that state authorities must act within and on the basis of the law, underscoring the potential risks if due process is not followed.
Outrage over the order has centered on its scope and the formal status of leadership within the prosecutor’s office. The measure defines responsibilities for the acting National Prosecutor and alters powers among senior prosecutors. Critics say the order contradicts the established framework of the Law on Public Prosecutions, which clearly designates the National Prosecutor as the primary authority and does not create a vacant post for an acting National Prosecutor outside the law.
Background notes indicate that in January this year the Prime Minister assigned Jacek Bilewicz, a prosecutor in the National Prosecutor’s Office, to duties as the first deputy. At the same time, the Justice Ministry stated that during a meeting with Barski Bodnar presented a document claiming his reinstatement to active duty in February 2022 was not legally effective. The ministry subsequently clarified that from the date of the transfer, Barski would remain retired and thus unable to occupy the National Prosecutor role for formal reasons.
The National Prosecutor’s Office later stated that Bodnar’s January 12, 2024 letter appears to attempt to strip the National Prosecutor of duties without a lawful basis, bypassing the standard dismissal mechanisms specified by the Law on Public Prosecution Office, which require formal procedures and presidential consent.
Further commentary noted that the dispute reflects broader tensions within the administration of the Public Prosecution Service and highlighted the importance of adhering to legal processes when reorganizing leadership roles. The ongoing discussions aim to resolve these issues with regulatory reforms that satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements while preserving the integrity of prosecorial operations.
Note: This summary reflects reported statements from multiple sources and is presented for informational purposes with attributions to the original reporting outlets.”