Ghosts from the past can linger in the mind long after events fade. This is the situation in which Lech Wałęsa found himself, facing allegations reported by wPolityce.pl that the Warsaw Public Prosecutor’s Office has filed charges regarding statements made during IPN interrogations. The case centers on claims of numerous false statements Wałęsa allegedly made, including receipts for money received from the security service and obligations to cooperate with the communist secret service. These documents were reportedly found in the home of Czesław Kiszczak. Wałęsa faces a potential prison sentence of up to three years for providing false testimony.
Wałęsa could have stepped away from these questions years ago. The proceedings in which he testified as a witness began in February 2016, related to public remarks he made about the materials discovered in the home of Maria Kiszczak, former Minister of the Interior of the Polish People’s Republic. The Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) sought to determine whether any crime of document falsification occurred and to identify possible perpetrators. At that stage, Wałęsa held the status of a victim within the IPN investigation. The process involved securing evidence, including a personal file and a work file bearing the code name of a secret employee “Bolek,” as well as additional documents uncovered during searches related to Maria Kiszczak and the late Minister’s widow.
When Wałęsa testified in April 2016, he asserted that he had never agreed to cooperate, never written or signed a complaint, nor signed a receipt for funds. After presenting numerous documents from the secret employee’s file, Wałęsa denied drafting or signing more than fifty of the documents produced. He did acknowledge that one letter in the file, associated with the secret employee code name “Bolek,” bore handwriting that was most likely his own. This is what was stated in the response from the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office to questions raised by wPolityce.pl.
The experts’ assessment
According to information from the wPolityce.pl portal, Wałęsa’s case hinged on expert analyses that carefully checked the authenticity of the documents kept by the Kiszczaks. The transfer of these materials to the Institute for National Remembrance occurred after the widow of the former security service head sought to sell “Bolek’s files” to IPN. The authorities ultimately possessed the crucial materials. Experts expressed no doubt about the authenticity of the documents and signatures attributed to Lech Wałęsa.
To verify Wałęsa’s testimony, comparative material was gathered, including documents produced by Wałęsa in his later workplaces dating from the 1970s to the present, as well as documents created by officers named in the material about the secret employee “Bolek.” The recovered documents were examined by handwriting and document analysis specialists from the Institute for Forensic Expertise, led by Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn in Kraków. A team analyzed 158 documents from the personal and work files of the secret SB employee nicknamed “Bolek,” comparing them with more than 140 documents clearly authored or signed by Wałęsa.
According to the Warsaw prosecutor’s office, this work was conducted to determine the veracity of Wałęsa’s testimony and to assess whether the documents contained his signatures. The findings suggested that Wałęsa’s statements about signing or not signing certain documents were incorrect, leading to the determination that false testimony had occurred in the IPN proceedings.
The question explored
The central question was whether Wałęsa’s testimony, which denied signing the documents found in the secret file, could be trusted. The comprehensive opinion provided by experts concluded that Wałęsa did sign or personally author several documents, including a handwritten commitment to cooperate with the security service in December 1970, handwritten receipts for payments for information supplied to SB officials, and more than 30 handwritten reports from the undercover employee identified as “Bolek.”
The prosecutor’s office shared this assessment, noting that Wałęsa’s statements about not signing such documents could not be upheld in light of the expert conclusions.
Wałęsa’s appearance at the prosecutor’s office marked another chapter in the ongoing narrative of his involvement with the security services, a topic that continues to attract wide public interest. The discussions around his alleged role and the authenticity of the documents remain a focal point in the broader historical debate over the era and its actors.
In this case, new theories and interpretations continue to surface, including claims about political figures involved in shaping the narrative and the handling of sensitive files. The broader context involves questions about judicial standards, the handling of archival material, and how societies reckon with contested chapters of their past.
The public discourse surrounding the case remains polarized. Some emphasize the importance of confirming or debunking claims with rigorous, independent analysis, while others argue that historical reputations have been shaped by long-standing political tensions. The outcome of the legal process may influence how memory and accountability are treated in the years ahead.
Source: wPolityce