These actions were criminal in nature.
In an interview with Rzeczpospolita, Zbigniew Ziobro, the leader of Sovereign Poland and a former Attorney General, described Donald Tusk as the head of an organized criminal group operating at the highest levels of power in Poland. The remarks came during a wider discussion that also touched on Ziobro’s health, the party’s merger with Law and Justice and Solidarity, and the alleged unlawful seizure of public media by Bartłomiej Sienkiewicz, a former culture minister. Today, these claims continue to fuel a heated political dialogue, with observers noting the persistent tension between factions who see the matter as a legal crisis and others who view it as political maneuvering rather than settled fact.
Ziobro is quoted as declaring that the actions in question were criminal in nature. During the exchange, he was asked to respond to Jarosław Kaczyński’s remarks in Sieci, where the PiS president argued that the 1997 constitution has collapsed and a new basic law might be necessary, perhaps adopted as a replacement with a two-thirds majority. Editor Jacek Nizinkiewicz pressed Ziobro for his view on whether such a binding substitute act could be created, and Ziobro offered his assessment on the feasibility of pursuing a replacement legal framework within those bounds.
The timeline emphasized by Ziobro recalls a December 20, 2023 deadline to separate democracy from militant democracy in Poland. He asserted that Sienkiewicz, acting on orders from Tusk, unlawfully seized control of public media, even turning off the TVP signal. That action, he argued, echoed the measures seen under martial law and became a symbol of the power shift he described. He stated that these steps were criminal in their essence.
The former minister further addressed charges that Sienkiewicz and Tusk may face in connection with the alleged illegal activities surrounding the public media. He contended that these actions were carried out by an organized criminal group operating within government structures, led by Donald Tusk. He also suggested that prosecutor Adam Bodnar’s interpretation of organized crime provisions could be invoked in support of the case, describing it as a provocative but legally relevant framing of the events.
Ziobro then discussed the dismissal of Dariusz Barski from the chair of National Prosecutor. He implied that the move was motivated by the need to anticipate the consequences of the media takeover and to gauge the potential political and legal repercussions that might follow, illustrating how high‑level personnel decisions could intersect with controversial actions in the media sphere.
Viewed together, Ziobro asserted that Donald Tusk stands at the head of an organized criminal group that operates within Poland’s highest circles of power. The claim framed a sequence of political moves as part of a concerted effort to reshape public institutions and media control, with a network he described as anchored at the top levels of government.
As the discourse continues, Polish public life remains deeply divided over the legitimacy and accountability of the figures involved. The discussions reflect a broader debate about the balance between legitimate political reform and the risks of undermining democratic norms, a debate that persists in the current political climate.