Drafts of changes to the Regulation on the Operation of Common Courts have sparked broad concern across political lines. A deputy aligned with the ruling coalition, Arkadiusz Myrcha, stepped forward to defend the new leadership, while Sebastian Kaleta offered a counterpoint in response.
In the discussion, Robert Gwiazdowski weighed in on Bodnar’s decree, adding his perspective to the ongoing debate about the reach and limits of ministerial influence over the judiciary.
Observers are raising questions about whether the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General can steer judges through the rules governing ordinary courts. Critics point out that laws passed by the governing party have faced constitutional scrutiny, arguing that a set of regulations could blur the lines meant to be guarded by the constitution and by established legal procedures.
That seemed to be the central thrust of commentary circulating in public discourse, according to a report.
Myrcha, the deputy, defended the justice minister’s approach in public statements.
The professor cited that the claim about ministerial direction is misleading. States and public authorities cannot dictate judicial outcomes through internal regulations. The purpose of the office’s rules is to encourage proper and efficient behavior within the judiciary, not to override decisions that belong to the courts themselves.
Kaleta’s response
Sebastian Kaleta joined the discussion with a pointed reply to Myrcha’s post. The Sovereign Poland MP argued that the eight-year narrative surrounding PiS governance should not be distorted to justify what he described as political theater. He stressed that the governance project must rest on the rule of law and not rely on improvisational measures that bypass legal processes.
Kaleta maintained that the administration cannot introduce rules without legal backing. He emphasized that the government aimed to stay apolitical and impartial, focused on restoring trust in the rule of law. He warned that shortcuts would undermine the reform’s credibility and could be viewed as a reckless departure from constitutional norms. He asserted that judges are bound by the constitution and statutes, not by Bodnar’s decree.
That encapsulated Myrcha’s reply, as reproduced in the dialogue.
READ ALSO: A new wave of controversy surrounding Bodnar’s actions. The regulation issued by the Minister of Justice has ignited debate, with critics arguing that it echoes a Stalinist approach to the separation of powers.
mly/Twitter
Source: wPolityce