The Sejm’s decision to elect new members to the National Council of the Judiciary has sparked widespread concern. Politicians and social media commentators weighed in, sharing strong opinions on the move.
Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz (KO), Robert Kropiwnicki (KO), Tomasz Zimoch (Poland 2050), and Anna Maria Żukowska (left) were chosen by the Sejm to join the National Council of the Judiciary on Tuesday afternoon.
Meanwhile, the Sejm rejected four candidates proposed by PiS: Marek Ast, Bartosz Kownacki, Kazimierz Smoliński, and Arkadiusz Mularczyk. All four had previously served on the National Council for the Judiciary as Sejm representatives.
READ ALSO: There was “Neo-KRS” and now it’s gone. A surprising change in TVN24’s coverage showed that electing members who are deemed suitable could reshape the council’s role.
Public response
The Sejm’s decision provoked strong emotions and a flood of reactions online.
The newly elected Sejm added four former opposition members to the National Council for the Judiciary, an action seen by some as restoring the body after the period when the system was described as Neo-KRS. In effect, the new Sejm’s choices reaffirmed the council and, by including these four parliamentarians, shifted Neo’s status back toward a traditional, functioning National Council of the Judiciary. Critics argued that this move could be interpreted as a restoration of the rule of law.
It is important to note that representatives from the former opposition had previously sat on the council for years and influenced the selection of judges for political reasons. Some commentators have used harsh language to refer to these judges as Neo judges. The question remains: will they, as the Sejm’s sole representatives on the council, continue to nominate Neo judges?
An observation about TVN’s coverage: the moment the coalition candidates were brought into the National Council for the Judiciary, the focus shifted from depoliticization to a political storyline. This pivot invites scrutiny of how media narratives frame the judiciary and the rule of law.
Before the Sejm session, TVN referred to the body as Neo-KRS. After the four politicians from the coalition were elected, the conversation shifted to calling it KRS. Critics say the reporting underscores a broader dispute over what constitutes the rule of law and democracy.
Some observers admitted confusion about the opposition’s move to nominate candidates for the Neo-KRS. If the Neo-KRS is illegal and does not exist, then electing representatives to it might be seen as legitimizing a flawed structure. The discussion continues about whether the Sejm’s vote created a legitimate National Council for the Judiciary or merely re-established a previously contested framework.
In subsequent commentary, remarks suggested that after years of arguing that the Neo-National Council for the Judiciary was unconstitutional, the path toward restoring a conventional National Council could be viewed as a form of institutional healing through personalities.
Judge Kamil Zaradkiewicz recalled a statement by Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz, a new member of the council, who had argued last year that the National Council of the Judiciary did not exist. A noted record from May 12, 2022, was cited to illustrate that sentiment, highlighting how political narratives shift over time.
Observers noted that the former politicized Neo-National Council for the Judiciary had transformed into a more democratic National Council for the Judiciary once the coalition’s four politicians joined. This shift was interpreted by some as a response to concerns about the so-called PiS dictatorship, while others saw it as a political maneuver.
Participants in discussions argued that the transformation signals a dynamic interaction between voters, media audiences, and political actors. The changes in ticker lines on TVN were pointed to as an example of how quickly the narrative can pivot depending on which coalition holds influence.
As the debate continued, some pointed out that the distinction between Neo and non-Neo configurations of the council had become blurred in public discourse. The broader question remained: what does this mean for Poland’s judicial independence and its governance as a whole?
The discussion circulated across social platforms and commentary sections, with varied opinions about the implications for the country’s institutions. The shifting labels and interpretations reflect a polarized political environment and a persistent conversation about how the judiciary should be governed and overseen.
Source: wPolityce