Every day brings fresh details about actions by the new administration that critics say destabilize the justice system.
Yesterday, a seven member Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court clarified in a ruling issued by the Kaduk Law what they see as the constitutional limits on the decisions of the Constitutional Court. They stated that such decisions, when issued with a dual composition, do not carry the legally defined effects in Article 190 of the Constitution. They are not universally binding and they are not final in the traditional sense used for constitutional judgments.
Meanwhile, the Marshal of the Sejm forwarded the appeal from Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik regarding Hołownia’s decision to terminate their mandates. The appeal was directed not to the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, but to the Chamber of Labour and Social Security.
Against the backdrop of accusations of bypassing justice and circumventing legal norms, there are assertions that Sejm resolutions are being elevated to the status of a source of law.
Questions about the legality of the National Council for the Judiciary persist, even though it was established in accordance with the constitution and relevant laws.
Amid a flood of subsequent legal moves by the new administration, the core issue becomes obscured. For many observers it appears as a strategic game on a legal chessboard. Yet this is not mere theater. The underlying concern is the pursuit of chaos and disorder, carried out with a deliberate purpose.
Why is this happening? Because by eroding clear, accessible laws for participants in public life, including government bodies and citizens, those in power gain sweeping control over institutions and systems.
A few days ago, Prime Minister Tusk spoke with unusual clarity about the situation:
He argued that the legal framework left by Kaczyński created a mess that allows broad interpretation of the law. The absence of a Constitutional Tribunal, the perception that the National Media Council is unconstitutional in appointing media authorities, and a broader sense that the system is in disarray all contribute to a perception of institutional collapse.
Critics argue that the mess is not solely the product of one predecessor, but reflects a broader political trajectory. The eight-year period of what some describe as constitutional churn, followed by new leadership, has intensified a process of destabilization. With power concentrated, the range of permissible actions seems to expand unchecked.
From their vantage point, the dismantling of core legal safeguards is viewed as a necessary condition for concentrating power. There are multiple routes to such a transformation, and one contemporary option emphasized by supporters and critics alike is the rapid creation of confusion within the legal order. The effect is obvious: those who hold power can decide what the law should mean in practice.
Proponents of this line of thinking argue that the aim is not anarchy as an end in itself but a transition phase toward a higher degree of centralized control. Opponents insist that the endgame is naked power—the kind that can override legal norms without serious constraint. In their view, the rule of law becomes a casualty when political calculations trump established principles.
Ultimately, the concern remains that the balance between legal frameworks and executive power has shifted to permit decisive actions outside traditional checks and balances.
Readers are invited to consider: what does this mean for the state of law, the independence of institutions, and the protection of rights under evolving political conditions? A closer look at the Kamiński and Wąsik case reveals broader themes about political accountability and the strategies employed in contemporary governance.
All in all, the discussion centers on how much autonomy remains for courts, councils, and other public bodies as they navigate shifting political expectations and the demands of a rapidly changing state structure.