“Without the opposition’s participation, the Committee on Russian Influence may resemble a neighborhood court in the eyes of critics,” stated Jarosław Sachajko, a Kukiz’15-Dmocracy Direct MP, in an interview with PAP Studio on Thursday. He asserted that individual ministries should disclose documents demonstrating Russian influence in Poland, and he indicated that a future agreement with PiS would be signed within a week or two. (Citation: PAP)
Earlier in the week, President Andrzej Duda announced the law creating a commission to investigate Russian influence on Poland’s internal security from 2007 to 2022. He noted that he would refer the bill to the Constitutional Tribunal in later proceedings. The law was published in the Journal of Laws and came into force the following day. (Citation: PAP)
Opposition allegations
Critics from opposition groups argued that the law is unconstitutional and clashes with the democratic rule of law. They announced they would not nominate representatives to the committee. (Citation: PAP)
Paweł Kukiz told PAP that if the entire opposition boycotts the committee, leaving only PiS and the United Right to nominate, he would abstain from voting. (Citation: PAP)
I can’t imagine one side judging the other
— he added. (Citation: PAP)
Sachajko: I will act like Paweł Kukiz in the committee
The PAP questioned Studio Kukiz’15 MP Jarosław Sachajko about the statement, and he warned that the commission could be perceived as a “murder court.” He explained his intent to conduct himself in a similar manner as Paweł Kukiz-15, emphasizing that the matter is not about street protests, riots, or feeding opposition fodder within the EU. (Citation: PAP)
“It isn’t about people in the streets. It’s about ensuring the process is not weaponized against Poland, nor used to destabilize the country,” he said. (Citation: PAP)
“Ministries must release documents proving Russian influence in Poland”
Sachajko argued that individual ministries should release documents proving Russian influence in Poland. He noted that as Kukiz’15, his group supported the committee, but if the opposition refused to participate, declassification of specific documents should be pursued to demonstrate to Poles the depth of the evidence. He also asserted that opponents would need to explain why certain controversial decisions were made. (Citation: PAP)
He questioned longstanding questions about Poland’s defense and energy choices, challenging the rationale behind strategic decisions and pointing to past policy gaps and controversial proposals. (Citation: PAP)
The opposition has unleashed a dispute in which other parties are not allowed to participate
Sachajko claimed that the opposition’s moves created a quarrel that left other parties sidelined. He argued that any discussion about Russian influence should be conducted in a way that avoids portraying the opposition as being persecuted, but that truth and public sentiment may diverge. He warned that poor reception could affect the upcoming election results for the United Right. (Citation: PAP)
Agree with PiS “in a week or two”
Sachajko affirmed that the signing of the agreement with Law and Justice would occur once both sides reach a formal understanding. He stated that there were no major problems remaining, with only details to be discussed. (Citation: PAP)
“Another week or two, and the agreement will be signed,” he noted, indicating that only details remained. (Citation: PAP)
“Let’s say out loud what we want”
Sachajko urged clear articulation of expectations, stressing that the goal was not a mere formality but an agreement to be implemented in the first hundred days of the next term. He highlighted topics such as the legality of citizens electing the chief constable in their city and whether only the municipal guard’s chief constable can be elected at this stage. (Citation: PAP)
When asked whether these were merely details or if there were fundamental issues to finalize, he rejected the idea that PiS had failed to meet program commitments from a year and a half earlier. He also recalled that some accounts tied to his party remained blocked by Sovereign Poland. The matter largely concerns provisions on local referenda and the bill on justices of the peace. (Citation: PAP)
The problem is the accounts blocked by Sovereign Poland
Sachajko suggested these were pre-election maneuvers by Sovereign Poland, aimed at maximizing seats on PiS lists and taking unwarranted steps. He claimed the party often opposed their solutions and warned of a political struggle that could intensify. (Citation: PAP)
He drew a comparison to Donald Tusk, suggesting Sovereign Poland’s behavior mirrored strategic moves by the opposition leader. He noted that Sovereign Poland had made various pre-election promises and opposed several proposals. (Citation: PAP)
In 2013, during a party convention, they spoke about strengthening local referendums, yet they were voting against justices of the peace, with Ziobro later claiming support for the same justice positions. (Citation: PAP)
Conversations with Sovereign Poland
Asked about talks with Sovereign Poland to reach a compromise, Sachajko said he had attempted discussions with party leaders at every Sejm session and requested meetings between Zbigniew Ziobro and Paweł Kukiz. He emphasized the need to recognize that the true adversary lay with the opposition, which did not wish Poland to retain subjectivity. He added that another SP politician must respond by Friday on whether a leaders’ meeting would occur and whether a broader coalition would form. (Citation: PAP)
Russian Influence Commission
On April 14, the Sejm passed the law establishing a commission to investigate Russian influence. The commission began forming in December of the previous year. PiS delegates noted that on May 11 this year the commission would operate under rules similar to a past Warsaw reprivatization verification commission. The Senate had initially rejected the bill, but the Sejm later voted against the Senate’s stance. (Citation: PAP)
The Commission is tasked with analyzing official activities, creating and sharing information with third parties, examining influences on board decisions, and assessing harmful actions or misuses of public or corporate funds. It may revoke administrative decisions, impose bans on public fund usage for up to 10 years, and review security clearance. (Citation: PAP)
The full interview is accessible via PAP archives and affiliated outlets. (Citation: PAP)