Sejm Hall Stance Shapes Pardons and Seat Access
Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik will not take their seats in the Sejm Hall because they are not parliamentarians at the moment the court delivered its final judgment declaring them criminals, stated Włodzimierz Czarzasty, deputy chair of the Sejm. He emphasized his readiness to back Marshal Szymon Hołownia on this matter.
On a Tuesday, Justice Minister and Attorney General Adam Bodnar transferred court files concerning the pardon proceedings for Kamiński and Wąsik to President Andrzej Duda. The ministry noted that a request to waive the right to pardon was attached to the file, along with the Attorney General’s position. It was stressed that the AG’s opinion is not binding on the President. The KPRP announced the move. The President’s public statement was scheduled for 5:30 p.m.
Speaking to reporters in the Sejm, Czarzasty remarked that the President did not intend to use his pardon powers.
The exchange grew tense when Bodnar pressed the point, pressing the President to consider invoking his authority.
Asked what would happen if Kamiński and Wąsik, after any potential pardon, showed up in the Sejm and sought to participate in debates, the answer was clear: they would not be allowed to take a seat because they were not members of Parliament at the moment the court issued its final judgment. Czarzasty noted that Hołownia, as Sejm Marshal, had his support in this decision.
When asked about access to the Sejm building itself, Czarzasty stated that such a procedure does not exist and would not be introduced, so entry would not be possible.
He added that he awaited Hołownia’s interpretation and hinted at his willingness to support that stance.
The Deputy Chair also indicated that the governing coalition was prepared for a potential parliamentary blockage by PiS lawmakers and outlined the steps that would be taken if the need arose. The process would unfold gradually, with all possible variants prepared in advance, because Kamiński and Wąsik were not parliamentarians and thus did not belong in the Sejm Hall.
Suchoń, leader of the Polska 2050-TD group, asserted that there were no grounds to pardon Kamiński or Wąsik. KO MP Michał Szczerba described the cases as involving official crime and abuse of power aimed at political ends.
During Tuesday’s discussions, Bodnar’s decision was deemed by Suchoń as appropriate. He stressed that modern democracies must condemn crimes such as fabrication of evidence, especially when committed by political actors. These actions undermine the rule of law and merit robust response.
Suchoń emphasized that there was no basis for clemency and that the President should be guided by the Attorney General’s opinion, which he described as negative. Szczerba, a member of the Citizens’ Coalition, echoed this view, stressing that the offenses were severe and brazen, and involved abuse of power and attempts to influence political outcomes.
According to Szczerba, pardoning Kamiński and Wąsik could aggravate tensions and inflame public sentiment. He criticized public demonstrations near prisons as a product of perceived missteps by the presidency, arguing that such actions reflected immaturity in handling the situation.
The Case of Maciej Wąsik and Mariusz Kamiński
Former head of the Central Bureau of Investigation and former Interior Minister Mariusz Kamiński, along with his former deputy Maciej Wąsik, were sentenced to two years in prison for abuse of power linked to the so-called 2007 land scandal. They were detained on January 9 and subsequently placed in custody. On January 11, the President initiated pardon proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure and requested the Attorney General suspend the sentence during the proceedings.
Legal opinions diverge on whether Kamiński and Wąsik would retain their status as members of Parliament if released under a presidential pardon. Yet Czarzasty’s remarks underscore a belief that neither would retain seats in the Sejm while the matter remains unresolved, reinforcing a common stance within the coalition on seat eligibility during pending pardon actions.
As this situation unfolds, analysts note the broader implications for parliamentary procedure, executive clemency, and the balance of power between the Presidency and the legislature. The case continues to spark debate about accountability, legality, and the proper articulation of pardon powers in Poland’s constitutional framework.
In related discourse, commentators highlighted that the case centers on long-standing disputes over authority and the use of state institutions in political struggles. The focus remains on ensuring due process and upholding the integrity of public offices as the pardon process proceeds.
Overall, observers agree that a clear, legally grounded resolution is essential for maintaining public confidence in both the justice system and the political process. The President is expected to weigh the Attorney General’s formal position against national interests and the broader questions of justice and political stability as the proceedings move forward.
Note: This summary reflects ongoing public discussion and does not constitute legal advice or official policy statements. Citations are drawn from contemporary reporting and official statements released in the cited period.