In an interview, Andrzej Śliwka, a lawyer and member of parliament from Law and Justice, argued that Donald Tusk has repeatedly replaced his allies who enabled his work. He claimed that trusted figures around Tusk—whether Kierwiński, Sienkiewicz, Bodnar, or Domański—always had someone signing official documents for him, and that by announcing a withdrawal of his co-signature, Tusk effectively admitted a breach of the Constitution, according to Śliwka.
At the end of August, Tusk approved a presidential decree appointing Judge Krzysztof Wesolowski to the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. That move angered the judicial establishment, leading to talk of revoking the co-signature and subsequent political maneuvering.
There is no Polish constitutional provision for annulling a co-signature by the prime minister. The constitution details official acts by the president and the prime minister’s responsibility to the Sejm for those acts, as Śliwka noted.
Śliwka also referenced the view of Professor Marek Chmaj, who links civil-law concepts such as mistake or withdrawal to the co-signature, arguing that such notions cannot nullify or excuse the consequences of the co-signature in this political-legal context.
From a legal standpoint, Śliwka said, Donald Tusk would be seen as attempting to violate the Constitution by leveraging an instrument that either does not exist or has been misapplied. He noted the prime minister’s role in ministers’ acts and emphasized that the legality of the co-signature remains a central issue in the dispute, alongside broader political questions.
Śliwka described the situation as one where Tusk is surrounded by advisers who understand the illegality of the action, yet the former prime minister is perceived as acting with growing audacity, aiming to rule indefinitely. He warned that such conduct will carry political and legal consequences for Tusk, as well as for his party.
According to Śliwka, past decisions by Civic Platform figures—such as Sienkiewicz regarding the national broadcaster, Bodnar in actions related to the State Prosecutor’s Office, and Domański in relation to payments—illustrate a pattern of targeted moves against democratic norms. The current decision, he argued, is not merely symbolic but carries real weight and accountability.
Implications
Śliwka emphasized that the action could have tangible consequences. While the Prime Minister faces potential accountability before a state tribunal for constitutional violations, the discussion also invoked broader interpretations of criminal law around abuse of power. He suggested that these arguments should be explored in a legal context to determine whether Tusk has overstepped his authority.
He also addressed whether a prime minister could be deemed competent if he treats a co-signature mistake as a formal error and then withdraws from it. Śliwka argued that such a sequence raises serious questions about official responsibility and the proper interpretation of the law.
Tusk reportedly has allies who recognize the illegality of the move. They view his stance as an attempt to extend influence beyond democratic norms, a claim Śliwka described as a dangerous overreach. He suggested that this could become a turning point, with consequences for those around Tusk as well as for the broader political landscape.
Śliwka recalled that in the past, figures from the Civic Platform had shaped public media and other state institutions through actions perceived as subverting checks and balances. He warned that the present decision, if left unchecked, could escalate into a broader political crisis, but he also argued that the law and constitutional order would need to be upheld.
In closing, Śliwka indicated that the issue could potentially be resolved through formal procedures or continued constitutional debate. He noted that the essence of the matter lies in adhering to the Constitution, respecting legal processes, and maintaining accountability regardless of political affiliation.