The process must be transparent
A significant faction within the new parliamentary majority, along with journalists who call themselves free and members of the legal community, are talking about accountability and retaliation. Yet Marcin Matczak, a professor who does not align with PiS, continues to argue that settlements are real but that revenge is not necessarily justified. He stresses that accountability should come through lawful, transparent avenues rather than through vendetta.
In a recent interview, Matczak, who positions himself on the still-oppositional side of the Polish political dispute, outlines how the PiS era should be held accountable while insisting that the process must remain governed by law. He argues that the reform of the justice system should begin with the public prosecutor’s office and proceed openly, with full adherence to legal procedures.
Matczak contends that the most visible aim is to demonstrate resolve and to win the trust of PiS circles. He notes that the Public Prosecution Service does not enjoy the same constitutional safeguards as the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Court, giving political authorities more space to act in this area despite changes under PiS to the Public Prosecution Service Act. He adds that there will be no harmful precedents if actions stay within the bounds of the constitution and avoid improper interference with independent bodies such as the judiciary, the Supreme Court, the Court of Audit, or the National Bank of Poland. The key issue, he says, is to settle scores in a way that allows prosecutors to conclude long-abandoned investigations. This view is echoed by a WPiA UW assistant professor in an interview with OKO.press. (OKO.press)
Matczak argues that public media must take further steps. The entire PiS settlement process should be transparent so citizens, especially PiS supporters, understand that what is underway is not private revenge. He emphasizes that the media will later report on settlements from the previous government and the work of the Public Prosecution Service. They should explain which charges are being filed and present evidence so the public can see what was at stake. He criticizes TVP propaganda, urging an end to the narrative that nothing happened in the past eight years, and asserts that transparency in settlements would bolster public sense of justice. He questions whether ending propaganda might simply replace it with another form of messaging and whether public media might revert to its eight-year pattern. (OKO.press)
In addressing other institutions like the Supreme Court, the National Council for the Judiciary and the Constitutional Court, Matczak warns that safeguarding independence makes decisive action more delicate. Quick, impulsive measures could backfire and sow long-term harm. He mentions the idea of zeroing a part of the Constitutional Tribunal, removing judges, or claiming the tribunal is tainted, and rejects such a stance as dangerous and unlawful. He stresses that changing the legal framework must be based on jurisprudence and legitimate grounds rather than political whim. (OKO.press)
Matczak explains that it is not simply a matter of setting a dangerous precedent. If a politician intends to influence the judiciary’s status, he or she must ground the action in the jurisprudence of the judiciary itself. He notes that, for example, with the Constitutional Court, it could be possible to dismiss some members or initiate proceedings against individual judges, such as those involved in controversial statements. (OKO.press)
With regard to the National Court Register, Matczak challenges the notion of sweeping out all new judges. He argues for constitutional consistency under the principle of “yes, yes, no, no,” while acknowledging that the Constitution permits temporary departures to preserve legal stability. If a solution allowed for re-running competitions while preserving court stability, it would align with the constitutional principle of social justice. A narrow review that excludes non-competitive winners would be unfair. (OKO.press)
Regarding the Supreme Court, Matczak suggests that competitions overseen by the National Council for the Judiciary should be repeated, ensuring that actions by the Sejm, the Senate, the government, or the president are grounded in an independent judiciary. The aim is to restore the rule of law without triggering a destabilizing cycle. He states that the process must continue, legally and resolutely, because the plague cannot be treated with cholera. Marcus Aurelius is invoked to illustrate that the best revenge is to differ from those who wronged us. (OKO.press)
Looking at the broader political discourse, Matczak notes that some KO politicians, led by Donald Tusk, do not always follow his counsel. He has described the legal system as the third estate in Montesquieu’s sense, while the current parliamentary majority appears to show limited respect for the separation of powers, especially in its stance toward the executive. (OKO.press)
ajt/OKO.press
Source: wPolityce
“I think it’s a terrible idea.”
When it comes to the fate of other institutions such as the Supreme Court, the National Council for the Judiciary or the Constitutional Court, Matczak believes that independence makes decisive action harder. Quick, emotional moves risk delivering long-term retaliation against the country. He cites proposals to eliminate the Constitutional Tribunal by firing judges and asserts that such measures would be disastrous. The aim should be to resolve matters while respecting the law, not tearing it apart. (OKO.press)
He argues that changing the judiciary without solid legal basis would set a dangerous standard for the future. If politicians seek to influence the judiciary, they must ground their actions in the jurisprudence of the third estate. He acknowledges that the Constitutional Court could be treated with care, and suggests that careful steps could include examining certain judges, if warranted by the facts. (OKO.press)
On the National Court Register, Matczak contends for constitutional conservatism in the approach to personnel changes, insisting that constitutional rules must guide any reform rather than sweeping, punitive measures. The aim is to maintain legal stability while pursuing accountability through proper channels. (OKO.press)
In his view, any change should come through repeated, legitimate processes that preserve the balance between the three branches of government. The political power should not act unilaterally but must respect the free conduct of the judiciary. The overarching message is a call for lawful, transparent reform that strengthens the justice system without turning it into a tool of revenge. (OKO.press)