Takeover of public institutions and rule of law concerns
An exchange in the European Parliament opened with a demand to recall similar events from EU history. Patryk Jaki, then a member of the European Parliament representing the United Right, outlined what he described as an illegal seizure of public institutions by the team around Donald Tusk. He warned that the situation could affect all EU members, not just Poland.
In reporting on violations of the rule of law, Jaki noted that amendments were tabled to highlight what he called positive changes in Poland. He asserted that public media authorities had legally guaranteed terms of office, yet claimed that Tusk acted without legal basis to seize control of the public media. According to his account, employees were dismissed in large numbers, including a pregnant woman and a person with a disability, and police were stationed around the buildings. He alleged that a minister used forged notarial deeds to justify the operation and that the public prosecutor who uncovered the forgery was subsequently demoted. He claimed that courts and the Constitutional Court confirmed the illegality, while those involved dismissed judgments as if they were non-existent, dismissing the significance of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
Jaki pressed the point by emphasizing that these were not minor irregularities but a pattern of power moves. He asserted that the situation had broader implications for European governance and urged MEPs to consider the potential consequences if such actions went unchecked.
— end of portion —
Takeover of the public prosecutor’s office
Further, Jaki described the sequence around the takeover of the Public Prosecution Service. He directed a warning to Members of the European Parliament, clarifying that he did not expect any intervention from them but that the details of the case warranted close attention.
According to the account, legitimate lawyers and voices calling for judicial independence should be troubled by the ministerial announcement that seemingly placed policy above law and constitutional provisions. It was claimed that the Minister of Justice dismissed nearly one judge from a specified post on an ongoing basis. The question was raised whether such a move could really reflect true judicial independence. Moments after these events, the narrative continued with reports that the leadership in Warsaw took steps toward the National Prosecution. The description claimed that officers were unable to access their offices, that personnel records were cleared, and that access to buildings was barred. The underlying motive, as presented, appeared linked to ongoing political maneuvering rather than legal procedure.
There were lingering questions about individuals who were said to have demanded bribes in association with Senate leadership. The dialogue prompted a broader reflection on whether similar episodes could recur in other EU institutions. The message conveyed suggested that the described changes were perceived by some as lawful while by others as deeply problematic. The account urged vigilance among EU lawmakers and warned that such scenarios, if repeated, could undermine the balance between democratic norms and political power. The closing sentiment emphasized a call for transparency and accountability within EU governance, urging attention to the methods used to assert control over key institutions. This account was presented as a cautionary tale about the fragility of checks and balances in times of political upheaval.
mly/X
Attribution note: The narrative draws from coverage and commentary published in regional media outlets and parliament transcripts to illustrate concerns raised about governance and the independence of public institutions in Poland.