In a candid conversation on TOK FM, a Polish public figure indicated that if offered the role of Minister of Justice, he would accept. Speaking with Dominika Wielowieyska, he outlined a vision focused on restoring the rule of law and reforming the justice system from within the political realities of the moment.
One of his concrete proposals was to dismiss the disciplinary prosecutors who oversee judicial figures. He argued that certain figures in the disciplinary apparatus could and should be removed to reset the balance of oversight in the judiciary, naming the trio of prosecutors personally involved in pursuing independent judges as a starting point.
He stressed that the path forward must be shaped by what is doable within the current political framework. He called for actions that are properly debated and guided by the legal community. He questioned whether the Iustitia association would be a part of these consultations, but asserted that every step related to the justice system ought to be discussed with an engaged and informed judiciary.
According to him, any changes in the justice system should be preceded by broad consultation with the judicial community to ensure legitimacy and practical viability. He also acknowledged that new legal changes would be necessary, even if some measures might face presidential vetoes. The underlying message was that preparedness and clarity about intended reforms are essential to demonstrate tangible progress, not merely empty promises.
Considerations around judges appointed by the current Council for the Judiciary
He outlined how the future treatment of judges labeled as neo-judges would unfold, a term used by opponents of the latest reforms. The approach would involve either a formal procedure to review their status or ensuring that their appointments receive proper scrutiny, particularly for those who emerged from the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. The suggestion targeted judges who could not easily align with the previous reform framework or those who advanced under this newer council setup. As for others who benefited from the promotion process or operated under the authority of the newly constituted National Council for the Judiciary, their appointments would be subject to renewed competition. However, he insisted that such steps should not undermine the accuracy of previously stated positions.
In relation to the Constitutional Tribunal, he described a measured stance. He proposed trimming the court by removing only those judges whom opponents view as duplicitous instead of pursuing broad, indiscriminate changes. His own position leaned toward a cautious, incremental approach, recognizing that some judges might be reassessed as a new majority slowly forms within the Constitutional Court.
He emphasized that the real work lies in preparing concrete, implementable reforms and in ensuring that the judiciary has the tools and legitimacy to carry them out. The emphasis remained on patience and strategic planning rather than pursuit of rapid, unilateral action.
tkwl/TOK FM
READ ALSO: A candid discussion on whether the ministerial role would be a suitable fit and what it would entail in practice for the justice system.
Source: wPolityce