The Prosecutor's Office asked president Karol Nawrocki on 3 September to indicate the time limit for proceeding him as a witness in the investigation concerning Constitutional Court judges. The head of state agreed to answer questions and invited investigators. Nawrocki is not a fishy in this case, but a witness.
The president agrees to the hearing.
Karol Nawrocki declared during his interview with journalists that the proceeding would take place. He announced that he would answer the questions and stressed that he made all the decisions himself. At the same time, he assessed the prosecution's actions as incriminating to current power and unwise from the point of view of the state.
The president recalled that he had already been interrogated in another proceeding, which was then dropped. This time the D.A. wants to talk to him as a witness. This discrimination is essential. The position of a witness does not mean a charge of committing a crime, and a request for questioning alone does not prejudge any liability.
Nawrocki stated that the office of president has many responsibilities, including internationally, but that despite the critical assessment of the substance the action will be taken. He besides added, "I'm a citizen like everyone else and I'll answer all the questions." This consequence takes distant the anticipation for the ruling to build narratives about avoiding procedure.
Investigations around Court judges
The procedure concerns the refusal to give judgement to any judges of the Constitutional Court elected by the Sejm in March 2026. Of the six elected, the president has not taken a vow since four. These judges later made a vow at a ceremony held in the Sejm, and the dispute besides concerns the anticipation for them to execute their duties in the Court.
The National Prosecutor's Office reported that the investigation was initiated on April 21, 2026.. The first subject under examination concerns the possible facilitation of the President's failure to take a vow from 4 judges. The second includes the activities of public officials employed in the TK, including the failure to delegate cases to judges and the deficiency of working conditions. These are the directions presented by the prosecutor's office, the final decision of the court.
The background is simply a deep dispute over the position and functioning of the Constitutional Court. We late described that The draft budget leaves the CK without a separate envelope for 2027. In parallel, there is simply a conflict over the composition of the Court and the effects of erstwhile changes in the judiciary.
Institutions must not be a tool of pressure
Hearing a witness is simply a average trial. However, erstwhile the President-in-Office is to witness, the prosecution must act with peculiar transparency. Any ambiguity will be perceived as an effort to drag law enforcement into a political conflict between the government and the head of state.
Nawrocki's answer is correct: consent to the hearing, clear presentation of your position and no escape from questions. At the same time, Poles have the right to anticipate the prosecution to be equally meticulous towards all parties to the dispute. Justice serves the Republic, not the immediate needs of the camp of power.
Trust in the state is at stake. If the dispute over the Court is settled by communications and procedural pressure, alternatively of transparent constitutional debate, citizens will pay for it. Growing conflict around the TK requires the right, work and respect for the separateness of the highest authorities of the State.
Source: News
Source: News
