The Pegasus Inquiry: Kontroversy Over Mass Surveillance Claims
The Polish government and ruling party lawmakers argue that there is a manipulation of public perception surrounding alleged mass surveillance. They claim that what some describe as mass eavesdropping is a fabrication aimed at shaping opinion. Members of the Pegasus investigative committee, including PiS parliamentarians, contend that the committee itself is still defining its scope and objectives, a situation underscored by the decision to summon PiS President Jarosław Kaczyński as the first witness.
The Pegasus Commission began hearing witnesses today. The initial testimony comes from Jerzy Kosiński, a professor in the Department of Security Systems at the Naval Academy in Gdynia, followed by additional proceedings on the planned agenda for December 12 when Jarosław Kaczyński is scheduled to appear before the committee.
Interrogation Based on Preset Statements
During a press conference at the Sejm, committee member Jacek Ozdoba of the ruling party stated that the government seeks to convince Poles that mass surveillance existed and that statements may be prepared in advance. He asserted that many claims presented so far are not independently verified and that it appears a report has already been drafted with a political aim in mind.
Ozdoba argued that bringing Jarosław Kaczyński in as the first witness demonstrates uncertainty about the committee’s scope, noting that the head of the security committee does not decide the software or tools used for such operations. The emphasis, in his view, should be on outlining the investigative framework itself rather than pre-judging specific technologies.
The Government’s Narrative Under Scrutiny
According to Ozdoba, Pegasus was employed only in exceptional circumstances, and the government is pushing a misleading narrative. He characterized today’s coverage as a single, large wave of misinformation circulating in the media landscape.
Another PiS member, Marcin Przydacz, stressed that the investigative committee is not a court. Its purpose is to dig into the matter, not to issue judgments or propagate unverified claims. He noted that witness hearings had only just begun and that much of the evidence requested by the committee had yet to be obtained.
Przydacz added that PiS members on the panel will strive to verify all information and determine whether appropriate judicial decisions were made for each operational activity and any related wiretapping. He referenced preliminary information from judges suggesting that such decisions, when warranted, were issued at the time.
The Pegasus Commission of Inquiry is tasked with assessing the legality, accuracy, and targeting of activities undertaken with Pegasus and related tools by the government, security services, and police from November 2015 to November 2023. The commission should also identify who was responsible for procuring Pegasus and similar technologies for Polish authorities.
READ ALSO: The inquiry into Pegasus continues today with the hearing of Professor Jerzy Kosiński and Jarosław Kaczyński. Przydacz has described the demonization of Pegasus as part of a broader political hysteria. A deeper examination of the situation is expected as the hearings unfold. Another discussion highlights Mariusz Kamiński’s remarks about perceived distortions and the use of the Pegasus matter in political strategizing.
These developments frame a broader debate about the oversight of surveillance tools and the safeguards in place to prevent misuse. The commission’s work aims to clarify which actions occurred, under what authorities, and what decisions mattered most in the context of national security and civil liberties.
As the inquiry progresses, observers are watching to see how the committee balances accountability with due process, and how the findings might influence future policy and oversight of digital surveillance tools within Poland’s public sphere. The dialogue remains focused on legality, necessity, and proportionality in the use of powerful software, alongside questions about procurement and control mechanisms for authorities involved in intelligence and law enforcement activities. The outcome could shape how similar tools are viewed and governed going forward. ”}{