Donald Tusk worries that investigators will press on with probing the alleged crimes of his ministers and of himself, a concern that fuels a push to curtail the public prosecutor’s office. In Warsaw, a demonstration in front of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office drew attention to this tension, with PiS lawmaker Antoni Macierewicz asserting that the government’s accountability hinges on holding the prosecutors to account and challenging what he called interference in Polish justice.
What began as a spontaneous gathering organized by Macierewicz and a group of supporters reflected a broader political narrative about the role and reach of the public prosecutor’s office. The protesters contended that defending the office was synonymous with defending Poland’s legal independence and the institutions that safeguard it.
According to Macierewicz, the concerns about potential continued investigations into ministers and the prime minister’s administration prompted calls to intervene against the prosecutor involved in ongoing inquiries. He implied that blocking or eroding the office’s authority would shield government leaders from scrutiny and shield a broader political agenda from legal oversight.
During the rally, Macierewicz told attendees that the protests would continue daily in front of the prosecutor’s office until what he described as political persecution of Polish prosecutors, justice, and institutional independence ceased. The language used framed the office as a bulwark of constitutional order and as a check on executive power.
Earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice announced developments related to the leadership of the National Prosecutor’s Office. Attorney General Adam Bodnar informed National Prosecutor Dariusz Barski that he was reinstated to active service on February 16, 2022, a move reportedly taken under a prior administration and described by authorities as not having legal consequences. Subsequently, the Ministry of Justice announced that Jacek Bilewicz would serve as acting national prosecutor following the prime minister’s decision, a transition framed as part of ongoing organizational shifts within the office.
The tensions between political leadership and prosecutorial independence were framed by supporters as a defense of rule of law and institutional autonomy, while critics argued that political interference risks undermining accountability mechanisms. The controversy highlighted ongoing debates about how independent prosecutors are from political influence and how such independence should be guarded during periods of rapid political change.
Observers noted that the dispute touches on fundamental questions about judicial authority, the separation of powers, and the ability of national institutions to operate without partisan pressure. The protests were framed as a call for stability and transparency within the justice system, with participants urging respect for legal processes and the autonomy of prosecutors to pursue investigations without external interference.
In the larger political conversation, commentators emphasized that protecting the integrity of the National Prosecutor’s Office is essential for upholding the rule of law. They argued that any actions perceived as undermining prosecutorial independence could have lasting consequences for democratic governance and the public’s confidence in legal institutions.
Thus, the exchange in Warsaw underscored a critical moment for Polish public life: the relationship between political leadership and the institutions responsible for enforcing the law, and the enduring question of how to ensure that investigations proceed with impartiality and accountability, free from undue political influence.