More than half of Poles believe the Verification Commission for investigating Russian influence should continue its work and that political leaders should appear before it in the future, according to a survey conducted by United Surveys for Wirtualna Polska. At the same time, a report on the commission’s activities that was rejected on November 29 was removed from the government website, a move noted by Wojciech Czuchnowski in Gazeta Wyborcza who argued that the document aimed to attack Donald Tusk.
Verification Committee for Investigation of Russian Influence
In October 2022, Grzegorz Rzeczkowski revealed the testimony of Marcin W., a witness in the case surrounding the 2014 wiretapping scandal. The then opposition used the testimony to challenge the PiS government and to craft claims that Russia helped Jarosław Kaczyński’s party gain power. KO and the leftclamored for an investigation into Russian influence in Polish politics, but they withdrew their demand once the then parliamentary majority proposed a similar probe. They refused to nominate their own representatives and labelled the verification committee illegal and unconstitutional. About a month after the parliamentary elections, the Sejm dismissed the entire committee. A record of its work remained online at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister for a time.
The report described by its chairman Sławomir Cenckiewicz as partial was published on the afternoon of November 29 on the Prime Minister’s Chancellery website. On that day the committee, which included only PiS nominees, held a press conference broadcast exclusively by TVP Info. Cenckiewicz, General Andrzej Kowalski and Andrzej Zybertowicz, who serves as security advisor to President Andrzej Duda, named Donald Tusk, Tomasz Siemoniak, Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, Bogdan Klich and Jacek Cichocki as individuals who should not be entrusted with public responsibilities related to state security.
Gazeta Wyborcza recounts the same framing and argues the report sought to undermine the new Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
According to the journalist, the report targeted the new prime minister and aimed to weaken his government before it took office.
PiS anticipated that a negative assessment from the committee would obstruct the president’s swearing-in of Tusk’s government. Yet this did not occur, and President Duda proceeded with the oath after Morawiecki failed to secure a Sejm vote of confidence. The president acted in line with the constitution, as the Prime Minister could not secure the necessary support; the swearing-in proceeded with the candidate chosen by the lower house.
Some critics argued that the use of the term partially reflected the previous government and committee members, noting that the report remained posted on the Prime Minister’s Chancellery website for public access. Yet it is reasonable to question whether a full report covering work from 2007 to 2022 could be compiled in two months while the current composition was already facing rejection.
The report’s appendices included declassified documents from the Military Counterintelligence Service. They were cited as evidence that the PO-PSL government led by Tusk tolerated improper contacts between the SKW and the Russian FSB during 2007 to 2015. In reality, the documents described routine contracts connected, for instance, to ensuring the safety of Polish troops returning from Afghanistan through Russia. The final agreement was not signed because Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, a point highlighted by Czuchnowski.
Former committee member Arkadiusz Puławski later rejected the claim that the contacts involved Afghan troop movements through Russia, noting that the proposed route did not pass through the Königsberg region, and that the Königsberg FSB did not oversee that corridor. He stated this on a December 7 appearance on TVP Info and stressed that the Afghanistan-related chatter originated in Russia.
Puławski also noted that the Afghanistan-related accusations emerged from sources in Russia.
POLITICAL DYNAMICS AND CONTINUED INTEREST
The narrative in Gazeta Wyborcza suggested the report with its attachments vanished from the Prime Minister’s Office website, along with the page detailing the commission’s activities. The journalist emphasized that the Chancellery was conducting an audit of its actions and costs, including questions about how much money was spent on rewards and which documents the commission retrieved from archives of the secret services, as well as whether any copying of materials occurred. Puławski and others continued to discuss these points, arguing the costs and handling deserved scrutiny.
The survey highlighted that a substantial majority of Poles want the committee to stay active, with respondents expressing that political leaders should appear before it in the future. The conversation continues to focus on how the commission can operate transparently and what the public deserves from such inquiries, especially in a highly polarized environment.
There is a clear call for accountability and for a process that the public perceives as credible. The question remains how the next government will respond, whether a refreshed composition can maintain public trust and provide a credible forum to examine Russian influence in Polish politics. Opinions vary on how much disclosure should accompany the committee’s work and how to balance national security with the public’s right to know. The evolving story underscores the persistent interest in examining Russia’s role in Polish political affairs, a topic unlikely to fade soon.
Ultimately, the central issue is whether Parliament and the executive branch can collaborate to establish a process that earns broad public confidence while respecting constitutional boundaries and practical governance needs. The conversation for accountability and transparency continues to echo across political divides, with the public watching for substantive steps that demonstrate responsibility and integrity.