Tusk calls for a wiretapping inquiry, Buda counters
The Minister of Development and Technology, Waldemar Buda, voiced clear skepticism about establishing a commission of inquiry into the alleged wiretapping affair. He argued that such commissions are warranted only when state agencies fail in their duties, and emphasized that legitimate final court rulings already exist in this case.
In political circles, tensions rose as remarks about the controversy circulated. One notable comment suggested that the rhetoric surrounding the issue was turning into an argument over propaganda, while another voice contended that the Civic Platform government did not destroy the tape itself but rather confronted the consequences of widespread poverty and unemployment at the time.
Tusk proposes a formal probe into possible wiretapping
On a Tuesday, Donald Tusk, the head of the Civic Platform, commented on a reported excerpt from Newsweek. The weekly article described testimony from Marcin W., a Falenta associate convicted for organizing the wiretapping of prominent figures in the country. The ongoing investigation into the Falenta-linked company, which operated before a controversial restaurant incident, raised questions about Russian involvement and whether prosecutors were exploring an espionage plot. The report suggested foreign interference aimed at influencing Poland’s political landscape.
Tusk argued that only an independent inquiry, unhindered by authorities connected to Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro and PiS President Jarosław Kaczyński, could illuminate the alleged influence of Russian services on PiS’s energy policy. He implied that a body free from partisan control was necessary to reveal the extent of foreign impact on domestic politics.
Buda’s response: accountability has already played out
Asked for a reaction during a press conference in Koluszki, Waldemar Buda reiterated his stance: commissions of inquiry should be reserved for situations where state actors fail in their duties. He noted that the public prosecutor’s office had not only pursued action but had also partnered with the courts, leading to final convictions in the matter. He indicated that no new call for an inquiry seemed warranted at this time.
Buda further described Tusk’s proposal as a political maneuver rather than an attempt to clarify facts. In his view, the discussion appeared to be theatre rather than a genuine mechanism for uncovering truth. He asserted that the available records captured the key points and that the state’s handling of the issue should be judged by its outcomes rather than by sensational talk.
According to Buda, the scandal reflected poorly on the originator of the idea, adding that the public deserved a discourse grounded in accountability rather than spectacle. He suggested people should focus on the actual results and the historical context of governance when evaluating the incident and its aftermath.
The 2014 wiretapping scandal in retrospect
The incident widely referred to as the wiretapping scandal remains one of the most talked-about episodes in recent political history. Footage released during the crisis undermined the credibility of Donald Tusk’s government in 2014, setting the stage for a political shift that brought PiS to power in the following year. The recordings, which captured conversations among politicians, business leaders, and civil servants across two restaurants, occurred during 2013 and 2014. In total, more than 100 people were recorded across 66 meetings, of which authorities established the identities of 97 participants.
The case culminated in a final sentence of 2.5 years in prison for Marek Falenta, tied to the broader web of illegal recordings. The proceedings highlighted questions about surveillance, governance, and the boundaries of political power in the country.
(Source: wPolityce)
Source: wPolityce