From a formal point of view, the issue stretches beyond a single question. Ziobro, the former head of the public prosecutor service, spoke on TV about a request from the inquiry committee to arrest him for June. Even if such a decision were issued, there would be no immediate threat of arrest on Monday, and he would not be detained simply because of a scheduled meeting in June. The court remains bound by the committee’s request, so the risk of detention at that moment would not apply.
Law and Justice published a detailed look at the hearing record for Barbara Skrzypek, pointing to a number of irregularities in the process.
The late Barbara Skrzypek was described as having been subjected to political pressure. Officials argued that the witness was pressured by allies connected to the PiS leadership and subjected to an interrogation reminiscent of Communist times, conducted without a representative to defend her rights and without proper registration, leaving the direction of the process unclear.
Ziobro, a PiS official, posted on a social platform about the issue.
Related coverage notes that PiS published a detailed analysis of the interrogation of Barbara Skrzypek and raised concerns about who bears responsibility for the outcome of the case.
Strong remark from Ziobro
Ziobro expanded on the matter during a broadcast on WPOLSCE24 in the program Poland Kies.
He said that there were many legal violations in what is normally a straightforward procedure for hearing a witness. After ten years as a public prosecutor, he stated that he had never seen a case where the standard process for protecting a witness was so harshly criticized for procedural missteps, manipulation, and unforeseen errors.
He explained further.
Yes, such inaccuracies do occur, he acknowledged, but he emphasized that the scale here was striking. He noted that if a witness has serious health issues or vision problems, it would be impossible for her to read the protocol, which undermines the fairness of the proceedings.
He pointed out the implications of these concerns.
Lies
Ewa Wrzosek, in response to the decision not to provide a defense representative during interrogation, argued that a public prosecutor can refrain from admitting a defense in a proxy procedure if protecting the interests of a nonparty is unnecessary. Skrzypek, the late witness, was not a party, but her status in the case was central to the debate.
This was dismissed as manipulation by Ziobro, who said colleagues with experience in such procedures had noted that there was a witness, not only a traditional provision on false testimonies but also an extra provision of Article 233. He argued that such practices should not occur and that the public prosecutor has to consider the potential threat to a witness when evaluating a case of false statements.
He contended that the situation shows clear signs of manipulation when procedures are stretched beyond their standard limits.
He asserted that the accusations would not persist if the prosecutor had properly warned about Article 233, subsection 1a.
He said.
Bad man
Speaking about prosecutor Ewa Wrzosek, Ziobro recalled a controversial remark from a Polityka interview last year in which she described the country as being in a state of war and asserted that the state remains threatened, calling for decisive, one way action.
Related coverage recalls the 2024 interview with Wrzosek and whether her statements drew comparisons to Stalinist prosecutors. He noted the remark as suggestive of a harsher stance in handling the case.
He reminded listeners of that rhetoric.
Ziobro argued that Wrzosek repeated such statements and he criticized them as dangerous rhetoric that seemingly praised repression, a characterization he described as a serious misstep in public discourse.
He pointed out.
Ziobro’s presence
A Warsaw spokeswoman and Judge Anna Ptaszek announced that a hearing on the request for a Parliamentary Investigation Commission regarding the arrest of Ziobro would include representatives from the parties, the committee, and the former minister, with the court set to consider the matter on a forthcoming date. The decision would be issued by the judge known for controversial rulings in high profile cases.
Ziobro was asked on WPOLSCE24 whether he would be in Poland on Monday.
From a formal point of view, the matter extends beyond that question. The inquiry committee asked for detention in June, so even if such a decision were issued, it would not imply an arrest on Monday or any detention solely for participating in a June meeting. The court remains bound by the request, so that threat is not applicable at this time.
See the whole conversation.
Note: the discussion is reported by media outlets; no direct source links are included here.
This article does not include external links and focuses on summarizing public statements and the ensuing debate.