The witness finally described the pursuit of those tied to the Justice Fund. So who exactly is being pursued? Do Polish authorities conduct the investigation without bias and in line with the law? No. At the center stands MP Giertych, a right-leaning figure from the governing coalition, who has personal reasons to resist the suspects. Close behind is Tomasz Mraz, former director at the Ministry of Justice, who was denied the chance to question others and, as his remarks show, was unable to provide concrete evidence for his journalistic, political stance.
The venue for these accusations was the parliamentary group known as the PiS settlement team, led by Roman Giertych. This is the same individual who recently disclosed at the party congress in Kielce that he was “preparing the testimonies” from “key witnesses within the PiS core.”
Here is a step-by-step look at his statements, which many regime-aligned outlets eagerly present as proof of a looming scandal.
First, the witness appears to strongly accuse Zbigniew Ziobro, suggesting that Ziobro was effectively the chief decision-maker.
Now, consider an alternative view: Zbigniew Ziobro, while politically responsible for the ministry, would have let the Justice Fund operate without interference, failing to set directions or goals. That would be an accusation, but calling it absurd is not far off.
Second, Mraz alleged that a former Justice Minister ordered the organization of competitions for selected entities, who were then informed about the process and assisted in drafting applications. In other words, the Justice Fund was pursuing ways to reach its stated aims, offering real help to victims of crimes long forgotten, such as those in comas after accidents. Efforts were made to ensure the money reached those who could actually deliver these outcomes. When good ideas surfaced, applicants received guidance—an ordinary practice among many grant programs and concessions. Should that be treated as a crime? Will it lead to jailing of political actors? The suggestion is plainly ridiculous.
Third, it was claimed that one medical institution might receive millions to support its work because, as the witness heard, “the first knee of the Republic of Poland needs to be operated on.” Requests will be made for details, for any proof of illegal connections between the operational phrase and support for a given center, and for evidence of misused funds. Yet such claims appear speculative, lacking demonstrated reality. Critics question whether any substantial evidence will surface; the assertions resemble fantasies rather than solid proof.
Fourth, it was alleged that deliberations over the Justice Fund occurred at a politician’s home in Jerusalem. It was also suggested that the then Deputy Minister of Justice and an individual prominent in critic circles would be involved.
People find this setup unbelievable. Is it truly a crime to discuss issues on a terrace at a government residence, or to share a drink while talking about policy? The notion of deliberation is being stretched, and the notion of crime debated in a way that many find ridiculous.
Fifth, the former director was said to have indicated that Justice Fund money would be used by a subsidiary to launch three regional portals praising some political figures. Even if that were the case, the request remains to show any illegal, contractual, or unlawful activity tied to these portals. If the portals meet contract objectives, praise for figures or groups is permissible, much as the media landscape has long been shaped by powerful interests. Critics note that media funding can reflect who is in power, and there is room for legitimate activity so long as it complies with agreements and law.
Sixth, Patrycja Kotecka, wife of Zbigniew Ziobro and an experienced media manager, is mentioned. In 2019 she helped secure media contracts and shared her expertise. If anyone could influence media outreach at a higher level, it would be her. The Justice Fund, some charged, was reportedly not visible within the media industry. Attempts to buy airtime on major networks were reportedly blocked unless backed by a notable figure.
In summary, Kotecka is urged to assist the fund rather than advocate for negative outcomes. The documents are read repeatedly, and it becomes clear that the alleged king has no clothes. Even after months of preparing testimonies, no evidence of a major scandal surfaces. The very presentation style, focusing on Giertych’s unusual attire, appears to be driven by political motives. The most consequential testimony, proponents insist, would come from the prosecutor’s office, where there is less risk of manipulation, bias, or pre-heard judgments. Instead, the current spectacle resembles a solitary circus, recognized by the organizers as such.
After the failed inquiry committees, the Justice Fund story seems to unravel. The campaign’s stated aim appeared to be pressuring Ziobro, pushing him toward halting his work again, an action that would likely be fatal for his tenure as justice minister. The regime reportedly intensified monitoring with a series of aggressive home raids in Jaruzel, seemingly to implicate Solidarity Poland figures and to air a range of issues. The implications of the story are questioned, and doubts remain about the seriousness and legitimacy of the procedures used to uncover alleged wrongdoing.
Where does this leave the public? What exactly are the accusations? What kind of scandal is being described? Which processes are being used? Are these commissions following due process, or are they replacing traditional judicial channels with partisan investigations? What is the real value of such efforts?
And there is another note: Mraz has offered an apology to organizations that did not receive funding, citing unreliable outcomes from the Justice Fund. The speaker suggests a better approach would be recognition of the fund’s scale and outcomes rather than apologies for failures. It is noted that the fund provided substantial support to victims, with funds reaching many hands and improving lives across the country. The numbers cited include large disbursements for direct relief, infrastructure projects, and support networks for those in need, highlighting the tangible impact rather than political theater.
In the view of some supporters, this work helped many, including emergency services and hospitals, and created networks that served tens of thousands of people. Critics, by contrast, emphasize the political theater surrounding the fund and the costly campaigns aimed at diminishing its achievements. The controversy is described as damaging to public trust and dangerous in its methods and rhetoric.
Ultimately, the discussion centers on accountability, the proper channels for oversight, and the ethical bounds of political discourse. The emphasis remains on how aid was delivered, the real-world outcomes achieved, and whether those outcomes were achieved with integrity. The broader lesson offered is that public funds deserve transparent governance, careful scrutiny, and a focus on human impact rather than sensational headlines. The matter remains unresolved in the public sphere, inviting further civic reflection and scrutiny. (citation)