The Supreme Court is accused of infringing on presidential prerogatives, attempting to override power and disregarding the decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal, according to Krzysztof Szczucki, head of the Government Legislative Center (RCL), who spoke with the Polish Press Agency about the Court’s ruling due on Tuesday. The ruling pertained to the closure of the Kamiński case and related proceedings involving former leaders of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBA).
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court annulled the previous dismissal of the Kamiński case and related charges against former CBA officials who had been convicted at first instance and pardoned by President Andrzej Duda. The matter was sent back to the court for re-examination.
Reaction of the Government Legislative Center chairman to the Supreme Court ruling
In a PAP interview, the chairman offered a critical view of the Court’s decision, arguing that it violated presidential prerogatives and the principle that such prerogatives should not be subject to scrutiny, including judicial review.
He noted that the president’s exclusive authority to exercise these prerogatives rests on a framework that is neither countersigned nor controlled by other state organs, a point he emphasized during the discussion.
Concerns about Court usurpation of power
The remarks pointed to a tension between the principle of separation of powers and the idea that courts should not become superpowers. Szczucki argued that the Supreme Court’s actions risk eroding a balanced distribution of powers within the state framework.
The chairman further stated that the Supreme Court had overlooked a ruling issued by the Constitutional Tribunal the previous Friday, which clearly asserted that only the president possesses the authority to exercise prerogatives. He described the Court’s conduct as a consistent effort to insist on final control in all decision-making processes, contrary to constitutional limits on the Court’s powers.
He stressed that the Court had no authority to review the president’s leniency powers, asserting that this outcome followed a pattern in which the Court aims to have the last say in every matter connected to executive prerogatives.
Reaction from the Presidential Chancellery
A presidential minister commented on the ruling, describing it as astonishing and noting that it contradicted three Constitutional Tribunal decisions that reaffirmed the president’s prerogative to grant clemency. The minister emphasized that clemency is a personal right, and no court may control the exercise of this prerogative. This view aligned with judgments issued by the Constitutional Tribunal, underscoring the president’s exclusive role in granting pardons.
The Kamiński and Wąsik case
In March 2015, the Warsaw District Court found Mariusz Kamiński, then head of the CBA, and Maciej Wąsik, his deputy, guilty of exceeding powers and improper management of the agency during the so-called country scandal of 2007, with other CBA executives receiving prison terms shortly thereafter. In November 2015, prior to review by the Court of Appeal, President Duda pardoned all four individuals. In March 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the first-instance verdict, and given the president’s clemency, lawfully discontinued the case. Public prosecutors filed a cassation appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision, and the proceedings experienced a long period of pause at the Court pending unresolved jurisdiction questions raised by the Sejm Marshal before the Constitutional Tribunal. The Supreme Court issued a ruling on pardons in 2017 as well.
Last Friday, the Constitutional Tribunal addressed the dispute over presidential pardons. It held that the right to grant pardons is an exclusive and non-reviewable competence of the President of the Republic of Poland, with binding legal effects. The Tribunal also concluded that the Supreme Court lacks authority to review the president’s use of leniency powers.
Readers can review related analyses and responses to the ruling, which discuss the implications for the division of powers and the role of the judiciary in constitutional interpretation.
rm/PAP