Wojtunik’s claims on wiretapping and political reaction
Polish opposition figures have seized on remarks reported by Paweł Wojtunik, who recently spoke on a TVN24 program about alleged wiretapping targeting representatives of opposition groups. In a post on X, the former head of the Central Anticorruption Bureau emphasized his duty to share what he had said publicly, echoing his recent appearance on the program. A government official from the interior ministry responded to the topic in turn.
Wojtunik’s assertion of eavesdropping
During the televised program, the former CBA chief claimed that information from multiple sources indicated a gathering at the CBA training and conference center in Lucień, Mazovia, where discussions allegedly led to a broad use of operational measures against opposition figures. He described a five-day period of wiretapping that, by law, could occur without court oversight provided the attorney general consented. The government’s security spokesperson later challenged these reports, denying wrongdoing and urging the public to distrust rumors while asserting that services operate within legal boundaries.
In response, representatives of the government urged the public to avoid spreading misinformation, insisting that security services act according to the law.
READ ALSO: Records suggesting monitoring of the opposition? Żaryn’s response to Wojtunik: “He acknowledged spreading rumors”; “Please stop lying.”
Statements from critics and supporters
The discussion continued as several figures from political opposition and related circles commented on social media. Some described Wojtunik’s remarks as evidence of attempts to influence public opinion in the run-up to elections, while others framed the allegations as part of broader political rhetoric. The conversation touched on whether the CBA or other security bodies were involved in political actions prior to the electoral cycle.
Wojtunik later reiterated his stance, saying that two weeks before elections, the leadership of security services discussed targeted surveillance of opposition figures and that such measures could be undertaken without judicial authorization for a limited period. He argued that if corroborated, these claims would signal a serious risk to state democracy.
Supporters of Wojtunik highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability within security services, while critics accused him of spreading unverified information and stirring controversy close to the election period.
Several voices from the opposition described the alleged setup as an attempt to influence the election results, asserting that legal oversight might not be needed for certain operations if accompanied by high-level approval.
A number of observers characterized Wojtunik as someone who spoke openly about tough issues in the security space, suggesting his disclosures reflect concerns about governance and the balance between state power and civil liberties.
The dialogue also touched on the broader question of what constitutes appropriate surveillance practice and the safeguards intended to prevent misuse of power within state institutions.
In parallel coverage, a commentary piece noted that the internal debate over these allegations could affect public trust in security bodies, inviting closer scrutiny from oversight mechanisms and lawmakers.
Concluding reflections on governance and accountability
As the dialogue continued, public figures from various sides urged a careful, fact-based approach to any claims about wiretapping or political surveillance. The emphasis was placed on upholding the rule of law while acknowledging the public’s right to be informed about the workings of state security services. The discussion underscored the ongoing tension between transparency, national security, and democratic processes during a politically charged period.