In late March, planners laid out a blueprint for ending the CBA’s operations and transferring its core functions to three national security and governance bodies: the police, the Internal Security Service, and the tax authorities. This was disclosed by Tomasz Siemoniak, the coordinator of special services, in an interview with a major Polish daily. The interview focused on how the dissolution of the CBA would unfold and what the transition would mean for ongoing investigations and anti-corruption efforts.
According to Siemoniak, two main scenarios depend on the response of the presidency. One path envisions presenting a formal project by the end of March that would dissolve the CBA and assign its duties to the police, the Internal Security Service, and the tax authorities. The other path hinges on the president’s stance and the political calendar, potentially delaying any changes until the next term or until a new legal framework is approved by the legislative and executive branches.
Siemoniak noted that if the Sejm, the Senate, and the President approve the law in the first half of the year, a new legal status could take effect starting January of the following year. If lawmakers stall or the president withholds assent, the timeline could extend, placing the realization of a restructured anti-corruption apparatus outside the immediate horizon and into a period aligned with the presidential electoral cycle. The minister underscored that such a transition would be complex, with careful attention to preserving the integrity of ongoing investigations and ensuring that the new administrators are equipped to maintain the momentum in anti-corruption work.
Public debate surrounding the plan has touched on concerns about the durability of anti-corruption efforts during organizational upheaval. Critics have argued that dissolving the CBA might send mixed signals about the seriousness with which the state treats corruption and whether the responsible bodies will retain the independence and resources necessary to pursue high-profile cases. Proponents, by contrast, contend that a consolidation of powers could streamline operator duties and reduce bureaucratic overlap, potentially speeding up the response to corruption and increasing accountability across agencies.
The discussion has also raised questions about the practical steps involved in the liquidation process. How would personnel be reassigned, and what guarantees would exist to safeguard the continuity of casework? What mechanisms would ensure effective information sharing among the police, the Internal Security Service, and the tax authorities? And how would the public perceive the shift in governance over an agency long associated with anti-corruption work and investigative activity? These questions point to a broader themes about institutional reform, the balance between centralized coordination and specialized autonomy, and the political will needed to implement a substantial reorganization of public security functions.
Analysts suggest that the debate is not only about the fate of a single agency but about the broader architecture of corruption control in the country. If the reform proceeds, it could set a precedent for how similar agencies with overlapping mandates are realigned to maximize efficiency while preserving the independence necessary for rigorous oversight. Observers also note that the timing of any changes will be closely watched by international partners and financial markets, which often look for signs that governance structures are stable and capable of enforcing the rule of law without undue political interference.
Overall, the dialogue reflects a moment of strategic recalibration. The government appears to be weighing the benefits of a unified approach to anti-corruption against the risks of disrupting established investigative capabilities. The outcome will likely hinge on legislative consensus, the presidency’s posture, and the practical planning required to safeguard ongoing cases while transitioning authority. In the coming weeks, updates are expected on the concrete milestones of the proposed liquidation and the anticipated distribution of responsibilities among the designated agencies. The conversations surrounding this plan illuminate broader questions about how states reform enforcement mechanisms in ways that maintain public trust and enhance the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts across different branches of government.