Wojciech Hermeliński stepped into the role of advisor to the Speaker of the Sejm. The former head of Poland’s National Electoral Commission offered Szymon Hołownia a path to keep MPs Kamiński and Wąsik from gaining entry to the Sejm building.
Hermeliński urged that the parliamentary access cards of Law and Justice deputies be deactivated. He suggested that, if Wąsik and Kamiński wished to enter the parliamentary complex, the Speaker should act in a specific, restrained way. The goal, he argued, is to prevent unauthorized entry while preserving constitutional norms. He explained that the question centers on what a chair of the Sejm can and should do when a deputy tries to enter the premises. In his view, this is not simply a matter of force but of upholding procedural rules and mandates. The former official posited that the controls at the entrances are designed to reflect the status of current mandates and to make clear when a member’s term has effectively expired. According to this interpretation, access can be restricted to the Sejm Hall, while a deputy might still be allowed to attend the gallery as a guest if the marshal grants permission.
“They cannot enter the Sejm Hall. I think if they really wanted to come in by force in this situation, it would be the Marshal Guard,” he told television commentators. This remark framed the issue as one of law, procedure, and the balance between public access and the integrity of parliamentary spaces.
He added that the Speaker must be consistent: if he makes a public statement A, he should stand by it and also articulate B. The Marshal’s position, he argued, is declaratory in nature. Yet this stance also reinforces what preceded it and underscores the idea that, under certain interpretations, the deputies’ mandates may be considered expired. Consequently, they would be legally barred from entering the main chamber, though they could theoretically enter the gallery as guests if the marshal approves. The emphasis here is on the chronology of mandates and on how official declarations shape practical access to parliamentary rooms. This line of reasoning places significant weight on procedural correctness and the formal status of a deputy’s term.
The discussion drew attention to the tension between political expediency and constitutional rules. It highlighted how high-profile figures can influence the interpretation of electoral and parliamentary authorities, and it showed how decisions about entry to the Sejm can be framed as much by legal interpretation as by political strategy. The broader question remains: how should a democratic legislature handle attempts by sitting or former deputies to re-enter facilities during disputes? Advocates for strict adherence to existing mandates argue that entrances must reflect the current composition of the chamber, while opponents warn against premature or punitive interpretations that could appear as political maneuvering. In this context, the central issue is less about physical force and more about the framework that governs who belongs in which spaces, and under what conditions that belonging is recognized. (citation: Poland politics commentary outlet)
Further commentary suggested that any final decision should align with the court’s rulings and with the long-standing norms governing parliamentary access. Observers noted that the Supreme Court’s prior decisions—whether anticipated or not—shape the practical steps available to the Speaker and to law enforcement within the Sejm complex. The discussions underscored the importance of transparency and consistency in how mandates are interpreted on the floor and in the corridors of power. (citation: national political analysis publication)
Overall, the exchange illustrates how legal theory, parliamentary practice, and media narratives intersect in moments of political contention. The core question remains: what is the appropriate way to handle access for MPs whose term status is in dispute, while maintaining the dignity of the Sejm and the rule of law? The ongoing debate makes it clear that the answer is not only about immediate access, but about upholding constitutional processes that govern the work and premises of Poland’s representative body. (citation: policy and governance briefing)