Public prosecutors are advised to stay composed as events unfold and the situation remains orderly. The narrative centers on Mr. Bilewicz, a prosecutor connected to the National Public Prosecutor’s Office who does not hold an official post there. Officials anticipate him reporting to work and performing the routine duties associated with PK prosecutors, reflecting typical operations and responsibilities in the public prosecutor’s workflow.
READ ALSO: PiS president: What is happening in PK is a serious violation of the law. I hope the time comes when those who do this are brought to justice
WPolityce.pl: Do you have any doubt about who currently holds the position of legal national prosecutor?
Michael Ostrowski: There is no doubt. The person identified is prosecutor Dariusz Barski. A recent ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal effectively paused the actions of Adam Bodnar within the Public Prosecution Service through an interim decision, reinforcing the view that the law is being respected.
And what about Jacek Bilewicz, who regards Minister Bodnar as the legal national prosecutor?
Mr. Bilewicz remains a prosecutor at the National Public Prosecutor’s Office but does not occupy a formal role there. The expectation is that he will report to work and carry out duties consistent with those of a PK prosecutor.
Will prosecutor Dariusz Barski direct those duties?
Yes, and in the event of his absence, another Deputy Attorney General would step in if necessary.
Meanwhile, Minister Adam Bodnar asserts that his appointment of Prosecutor Bilewicz as National Prosecutor is lawful and that the resulting backlash is destabilizing the prosecutor’s office and the justice system.
The speaker expresses surprise at such claims, noting that Bodnar is recognized as an expert in human rights. If Attorney General Bodnar wishes to replace the National Prosecutor, a straightforward legal procedure would apply: he would submit a request to the Prime Minister to dismiss the National Prosecutor, the Prime Minister would seek written permission from the President of the Republic, and with that permission everything would be in order. Under this process, the Attorney General’s decision would be regarded with proper respect.
However, Bodnar reportedly does not possess the requisite presidential signature and argues that Prosecutor Bilewicz is effectively performing the duties of the National Prosecutor, while raising questions about Prosecutor Barski’s pension status.
Those concerns are challenged. Barski remains active in the prosecutor’s office, a point underscored by Bodnar himself, who has repeatedly issued directives to Barski. The volume of orders Bodnar issued in a short period is remarked upon, with commentators suggesting that recent administration under different leadership would not have delegated so many tasks to the National Prosecutor.
Is the work of prosecutors across Poland today at risk, or can they proceed with their duties without disruption?
Calmness is urged among prosecutors as the situation is described as stable and without a basis for alarm. Yet concerns persist in some media outlets and among certain political figures about the prospect of dual power within the public prosecutor’s office and the potential threats that could arise from such a scenario.
Statements about dual power are viewed as a threat to state security, and there is a clear stance that such a situation does not exist.
All of these observations and discussions reflect ongoing tensions surrounding the leadership and authority within the public prosecutor’s office. The overarching message emphasizes that the core functions of the office should continue with restraint and in strict accordance with established legal procedures.
In summary, the public discourse remains focused on the proper exercise of authority, the integrity of the office, and the commitment to lawful processes while the situation evolves in the days ahead.