The head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Jan Grabiec, indicated that the presidential palace would soon receive a formal request for guidance on the candidate for national prosecutor. He expressed a clear hope that the president would not delay in responding, noting that speed here would be important. Grabiec stressed that for the appointment of a new National Prosecutor, the president’s assessment would not determine the outcome. His remark hinted at a belief that quick action was paramount, even if it meant a tough stance toward the head of state.
Tusk’s government wants to ignore the president’s opinion!
In a television interview on TVN24, Grabiec asserted a preference for a swift appointment of a national prosecutor, calling attention to the fact that the current situation involved a prosecutor who had historically faced questions about legality. He insisted that the president should be asked for his view on the matter and that this opinion would be noted as part of the process, regardless of its eventual influence.
A formal request for the president’s opinion would be submitted to the presidential palace in the near future. Grabiec reiterated the expectation that the president would not delay in giving his reaction, provoking questions about whether there is an urgency behind his push.
According to Grabiec, the president’s stance would not be the sole factor shaping the appointment of the new national prosecutor, underscoring a perception that political momentum could override the president’s assessment.
In recalling the relevant legal framework, the text of the Law on Public Prosecutions explains that the National Prosecutor, as the first deputy of the Public Prosecution Service, along with other deputies, is appointed from among prosecutors of the National Prosecutor’s Office and can be dismissed by the Prime Minister at the request of the Attorney General. The same law notes that the National Prosecutor and other deputies are to be appointed upon the advice of the President of the Republic of Poland and can be dismissed only with the president’s written consent.
These constitutional and statutory provisions frame a structured sequence for appointments and dismissals, but public disputes over interpretation have created tensions about who has the final say. The description describes a regulation that many observers say is central to the ongoing power struggle between the presidency and the government.
Analysts noted that articles in the press have highlighted discussions about how much weight the president’s view should carry in this process. The frictions have intensified as commentators have pointed to recent statements and actions by various political players as signs of how the office of the president and the Prime Minister may collide over personnel choices.
READ ALSO: Bodnar’s ministry will ignore President Duda’s objections to the National Prosecutor. Ejchart: We are waiting for the advice, but that does not oblige us
The president won’t issue any advice at all?
There is an ongoing competency dispute concerning the responsibilities related to the office of the National Prosecutor. The case has been referred to the Constitutional Court, and under the Law on the Tribunal, all activities related to the case were suspended during the dispute. If any action is taken, the president would have a clear and direct answer. Critics argue that some actions would be illegal and contrary to the law.
Piotr Ćwik, deputy head of the president’s chancellery, spoke to the press at the end of February, noting the legal complications and the status of the dispute. He explained that the president might be constrained from issuing an opinion while the matter remains before the tribunal and under ongoing jurisdictional questions.
Asked whether the president should issue an opinion on the issue, the presidential aide suggested that the matter should be understood as awaiting the tribunal and the resolution of the jurisdictional dispute. Acknowledging this ambiguity, he indicated that the president would act in alignment with the court’s determinations when appropriate.
The ‘competition’ farce
There are concerns about the legitimacy of the selection process for the National Prosecutor. Dariusz Korneluk is described by some observers as having won a “contest” in what critics call an illegitimate procedure that did not align with the Public Prosecution Act. Comments from former officials and journalists have suggested that the competition was not codified in the act and that the process was orchestrated in ways that raised questions about its validity.
During interviews, Sebastian Kaleta, a former Deputy Minister of Justice, stated that Korneluk had joined the civil service through a path described as artificial and framed by Bodnar’s involvement, with implications about the integrity of the process and the personnel cycle in the ministry. This has fed broader debate about whether the competition truly reflected merit and legality or if it served political aims.
Observers and media commentators have urged a careful review of the events to determine whether the procedure was legitimate and whether those involved should be considered for future roles. Critics argue that the episode underscores the dangers of politically influenced appointments and the need for strict adherence to established procedures to maintain public trust.
Some writers have emphasized that the series of events surrounding Bodnar and others appears to be part of a larger pattern of influence over the justice system, prompting questions about accountability and the independence of the prosecutor’s office. The discussions have also explored the potential consequences for the perception of justice and the rule of law in the country.
These dynamics have been reported by multiple outlets, with commentators weighing in on the implications for governance and judicial integrity. The public conversation centers on the balance between government efficiency and the safeguarding of due process, transparency, and legal compliance in high-stakes personnel decisions.
Source: wPolityce