Matyszkowicz, the president of Telewizja Polska (TVP), has filed a formal notice with the National Court Register alleging an illegal bid to seize control of the broadcaster. The disclosure was highlighted by Marcin Warchoł, a member of parliament from Sovereign Poland, who announced the development on the social platform X.
In a related note, observers were reminded of prior developments concerning the supervisory board of TVP, as well as remarks suggesting that Mateusz Matyszkowicz’s role was formally registered with the National Court Register. The public discussion continues to focus on who was involved in the attempt to influence TVP’s governance and how it aligns with Poland’s corporate and media oversight frameworks.
The message from TVP’s leadership mentions a formal filing linked to the hashtag #ZamachNaTVP on X, underscoring the seriousness with which the organization views the events and the attempts to alter its leadership structure.
Warchoł’s commentary implies a defined sequence of actions described as part of a larger scheme tied to corporate changes that purportedly took effect in June of the previous year. He framed the matter as a deliberate and organized effort to reconfigure the company’s governance, suggesting a breach of proper procedures and legal norms.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage issued a public statement noting that its leadership, headed by Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, acted in accordance with the Commercial Code, and that certain leadership changes were attempted as part of a broader reorganization involving current and incoming boards of the Polish Television, Polish Radio, and the Polish Press Agency. The ministry described the attempts to implement these changes as not having legal footing, signaling a dispute over the legitimacy of the new boards and the authority behind them.
Media coverage and official statements at the time have reflected a tension between the executives who currently manage these media institutions and the bodies attempting to install new supervisory or management teams. The central question in the public debate remains whether the attempted transitions complied with applicable corporate and media governance rules or whether they constituted an irregular intervention in the affairs of state-owned media outlets.
As the narrative evolved, questions arose about how such governance disputes intersect with Poland’s regulatory framework, the roles of supervisory boards, and the powers vested in the minister and other state institutions to oversee public broadcasters. The exchange among political actors and media watchers has emphasized the balance between statutory authority and the practical realities of running large, state-linked media organizations in a highly scrutinized environment.
The ongoing discussion illustrates how allegations of governance upheaval can become flashpoints in public discourse, prompting close attention from lawmakers, industry observers, and the public about the proper channels for appointing leadership, safeguarding editorial independence, and ensuring transparent corporate procedures within national broadcasting institutions. While the specifics of each claim may require further validation through official records, the broader issue highlighted by these events concerns governance legitimacy, compliance with applicable laws, and the mechanisms by which media organizations are kept accountable to the public they serve.
Overall, the situation underscores the complex interplay between statutory governance, organizational reform proposals, and the potential for conflict when leadership transitions collide with entrenched interests within the media landscape. The parties involved have called for adherence to due process and legal norms as the situation unfolds in public view, with active scrutiny from both government oversight bodies and the press itself to determine the appropriate and lawful path forward for Poland’s public broadcasting system.