“The rule of law cannot be restored or rebuilt through unlawful methods that violate the Constitution, disregard its provisions, sideline the President, and weaken his role in public life”, stated Prof. Genowefa Grabowska, an expert in international and European law.
wPolityce.pl reports that after a meeting with Prime Minister Donald Tusk, President Andrzej Duda noted that one topic of discussion was the cases involving Ministers Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik. The President urged Justice Minister Adam Bodnar to honor the request to release the PiS parliamentarians during the pardon procedure. How should Adam Bodnar’s recent actions be viewed, including decisions that appear to ignore the President’s prerogatives and appeals?
Prof. Grabowska replied that this is political theater rather than a matter of right versus wrong application of law. The government seems to pursue a political aim, regardless of the legal framework, and that path rarely ends well. If the objective is to achieve a stated goal, actions must stay within lawful bounds and respect the law. She pointed to the Public Prosecution Service and the detention of Members of Parliament as examples of this failing approach.
In this context, the President’s prerogative has not been honored. The Constitution provides a general framework, yet when the President grants a pardon, that decision must be respected. Even though the constitutional wording is broad and imperfect, attempts to modify it are under consideration. Given the gravity of constitutional provisions, amending them is difficult, and the law should not be circumvented through other means.
This cannot be achieved via Sejm resolutions, as some have claimed. No interpretation can diminish or extend the presidential prerogative to pardon. After the President issues a pardon, further proceedings, trials, or convictions in the same case should not continue; the matter should be considered closed on the merits of res judicata.
Moreover, Bodnar, a lawyer who understands the law and has served as Commissioner for Human Rights, should also consider the rights of those who are imprisoned. This includes the parliamentary rights of Kamiński and Wąsik, as well as their fundamental rights as individuals who may be wrongfully detained.
Regarding the rights of the wrongly imprisoned, Deputy Minister Bodnar addressed a hunger protest last week, stating that everyone has the right to abstain from eating or drinking. That stance drew critique, as it seemed to downplay the seriousness of health and life concerns for those affected by imprisonment. It was viewed as an inappropriate stance for a high-ranking official charged with safeguarding the fate of imprisoned individuals.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk commented that Bodnar, who is not affiliated with any political party and is fundamentally independent by nature, should not need to separate the roles of Minister of Justice and the Attorney General. Yet the actions of the current justice chief in holding both roles raise questions about true independence. Poland has a short, turbulent history with a split attorney general and minister of justice. The first and only case of a separate Attorney General occurred from 2010 to 2016 with Andrzej Seremet. Subsequent investigations into events like the Smolensk disaster, the Amber Gold affair, and the wiretapping scandal contributed to the decision to merge the roles again in 2016.
Today, the overlap between the two offices is again controversial, as it does not demonstrate the independence of action expected from the Attorney General, particularly when confronted with the head of government. Just yesterday the minister and the attorney general publicly stated that the decision to dismiss the national prosecutor rests with the Prime Minister.
As a result, questions about internal communication within the government arise. When actions appear subordinate to political aims, the law is sometimes invoked as a shield but should instead guide conduct. What might Secretary Bodnar’s approach mean in the long run? Is the aim to strengthen the rule of law, or could the outcome be the opposite?
Observers can decide for themselves whether the country appears calmer or more tense. If the rule of law were truly honored, society would not witness such intense protests in its defense or demonstrations in front of prisons housing former ministers and other members of the Sejm who are detained.
Ultimately, the central message is that the rule of law cannot be restored through illegal means, violating the Constitution, rejecting its provisions, bypassing the President, or weakening his public role. That path does not restore the rule of law.
So, when it comes to justice, does the end justify the means?
Not at all.
Thank you for the interview.