Testimony Before the Sejm Investigative Committee: Tensions during the 2020 Postal Elections Discussion
Artur Soboř, who previously served as deputy minister of state assets, testified today before the parliamentary investigative committee regarding the 2020 correspondence elections. The session featured a sequence of cross-examinations as Soboř and other witnesses, including former vice presidents of Poczta Polska SA, faced one another in a tense exchange of questions and responses.
“This is a poor way to pose questions.”
The proceedings opened with Soboř expressing concern about the tone and method of questioning. He conveyed that he felt unnerved by the direction of the inquiry, noting that the line of questions, in his view, did not always rely on documents or concrete evidence supporting the assertions made by the committee members.
In the course of the testimony, a back-and-forth developed between Soboř and the committee chair. The dialogue touched on the instructions given at the outset of the meeting and whether there existed any written orders corroborating those instructions. Soboř asserted that no documents in the record confirmed he had received such an order, while the chair maintained that it was his duty to follow instructions already issued.
Another notable moment occurred when MP Przemysław Czarnek urged the panel to file a formal motion. The exchange then shifted to broader concerns about the proper conduct of the hearing and the balance between scrutiny and fairness.
Ionian threats
As discussions intensified, the committee chair pressed Soboř on the seriousness of certain statements and whether any criminal implications might arise from the way the questions were framed. Dariusz Joński introduced the possibility of penalties or a prosecutor’s office inquiry, prompting Soboř to respond that criminal threats could only emerge under specific circumstances, and that he would not accept being unfairly characterized.
“You cross the line,”
the former deputy minister retorted, underscoring the perceived boundaries of parliamentary oversight and the need for due process during testimony.
Doubts about the postal elections
The discussion then moved to a review of a Gazeta Wyborcza interview from April 22. Soboř referred to the segment as one that highlighted lingering doubts about both traditional and postal voting procedures. He challenged the characterization of his remarks as an endorsement of highly efficient electoral organization, noting that the full context of the interview was essential to understanding his position.
“It isn’t a question; it’s a sharp suggestion,”
Soboř later said, lamenting what he viewed as misrepresentation of his statements during the excerpted footage.
“Shall we watch more of my interviews?”
When a new recording was announced, Soboř took a measured, ironic tone, suggesting that further review of the materials would reveal additional context. Joński pressed for clarity and accuracy, while the witness urged a fair reading of his remarks, emphasizing that the audience should not be misled by selective editing.
Recorded from April 2020
During the examination, Soboř recalled a fragment of an interview with a journalist at the time, in which the question of who would guard the ballot boxes was addressed. He described his assurances that Poczta Polska employees would collect and secure the votes and that the process would be governed by formal regulations and documented procedures. He stressed that the security of the ballots would be ensured by sealed bags and a clear protocol from the outset of the process.
Work meeting
The witness reflected on a period marked by heightened responsibilities and increased workloads as the state prepared for the election-related tasks. He noted that all witnesses invited by the committee had spoken about the preparations and the measures taken to organize the correspondence elections, underscoring the collective effort involved in these preparations.
Contradictions in witness statements?
Soboř pointed to two possible approaches for presenting information at the minister’s request: sharing what he personally believed or inviting the presidents of Poczta Polska to participate directly in various meetings where the details would be discussed. He asserted that his testimony aimed to reflect a careful balance between personal understanding and official discussion, stressing the importance of accuracy when recounting these events.
“Pursuing a statement that my testimony is inconsistent with that of other witnesses will not succeed,”
he told the chair, signaling his readiness to address discrepancies through orderly dialogue rather than adversarial confrontation.
“You get specific answers.”
As the dialogue continued, Soboř asserted that the goal was to provide precise, verifiable responses rather than generalized assertions, even as the committee pursued various lines of inquiry and pressed for clarity on operational connections with Poczta Polska.
Contact with Poczta Polska
When asked about any ongoing operational contact with Poczta Polska regarding the postal elections, Soboř replied that the question had already been addressed by witnesses who testified earlier in the proceedings. He reiterated his position that the information had been covered and that repeating it would not add new insight to the record.
Joński asks a question
The chair then asked Soboř whether he had read the testimony of former Poczta Polska presidents, including Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin. Soboř indicated that some transcripts were accessible on the committee’s website, while others were not, and he admitted difficulty in following all proceedings to their fullest extent. He suggested that, in some cases, proceeding discussions with President Zdzikot could have been more efficient if the format allowed for greater conciseness and focus.
Ionski interrupts his statement
Despite an explicit commitment to speak freely, Soboř found himself constrained by interruptions from the chair. He asserted his loyalty to state authorities while acknowledging the challenge of delivering uninterrupted testimony under the committee’s procedural constraints. The head of the commission emphasized the need for orderly conduct and cautioned that the witness might face formal actions if the proceedings deviated from the established rules.
Witness request
In a development noted by observers, Soboř submitted a formal request during the session. He stated that in a setting where the High Commission was preparing to challenge the accuracy of the testimony, a withdrawal from the request could occur if the process was not allowed to proceed fairly. The moment underscored the delicate balance between pursuing accountability and maintaining procedural fairness in parliamentary inquiries.
Artur Sobon appeared before the Sejm Investigative Committee
Repeated references to Sobon’s appearance highlighted the ongoing nature of the committee’s inquiry and the broader effort to map out the conduct of officials related to the 2020 elections and related procedures.
Vote on changing the agenda
During a pivotal vote on the agenda for the committee, six members opposed the change, three supported it, and one abstained. The result underscored the contentious atmosphere surrounding the inquiry and the high stakes involved for all participants.
Question from MP Buda
MP Waldemar Buda asked whether there exists a court ruling related to witness Artur Sobon, a question that reflected the broader concern about judicial oversight and the legal implications of the testimony being considered. The exchange continued with careful consideration of available records and the implications of any rulings for the ongoing investigation.
jj/Sejm.gov.pl
Source: wPolityce