A startling case illustrates political retaliation aimed at a witness involved in the investigative committee’s work. Dariusz Joński, who behaved unprofessionally during committee proceedings and was excluded from a hearing with prosecutor Edyta Dudzińska, is demanding a public apology from her. The opposition member believes he has filed a sound, legally grounded motion to exclude the prosecutor and has offered a reasoned justification. Critics view Joński’s demands as an effort to sway the witness and exert pressure, rather than pursuing fair due process.
READ ALSO: REPORT. A confrontation is anticipated between Prosecutor Wrzosek and Prosecutor Dudzińska. The post-election Inquiry Commission session is nearing its close.
Prosecutor Dudzińska sought Joński’s dismissal following his remarks during a radio interview on Agora. He contends his comments referred to a different official, not her. Yet, unofficial sources indicate that Joński himself acknowledged in a written note to the prosecutor that the investigator could reasonably believe the remarks were directed at her during the broadcast. In response, Joński issued an ultimatum, demanding a formal apology within 24 hours.
Yesterday, a public prosecutor appeared as a witness. She submitted an affidavit and filed a motion to disqualify the chairperson of the envelope election committee. She contends that she was defamed in a TOK FM interview conducted about a week earlier, though she maintains that her remarks did not name anyone specifically. She asserts that the defamation related to a discussion about halting proceedings in light of a Supreme Court request, a matter linked to a different prosecutor who also oversaw inquiries into Morawiecki, Bielan, and Dworczyk after PiS lost the elections, but not with regard to Dudzińska. The formal application was sent today. The prosecutor is seeking an apology and an immediate end to what she characterizes as a violation of personal rights.
— Joński stated during a recording released on X, highlighting his stance and the timeline of events.
Still, the advocate’s assertive posture appears to be met with resistance. The core aim, observers note, is to deter a prosecutor who has demonstrated steadfastness, independence, and resilience during questioning. The incident is viewed by many as a test of institutional integrity and the capacity of the investigative process to withstand political pressure.
In the broader view, the confrontation underscores how witnesses and prosecutors navigate a charged political environment where accountability and procedural fairness are weighed against public expectations and media narratives. The evolving situation continues to attract attention from legal professionals and political observers who emphasize the need for due process, transparent conduct, and respect for the rights of every party involved.
End of report. (via wPolityce)