A year after the ministry of justice, Waldemar Żurek saw a comparison, which in the ruling camp must sound like the heaviest charge. "Rzeczpospolita" writer Piotr Szymaniak wrote that the minister "more and more resembles Zbigniew Ziobra", whose regulation of the right inactive late set the example of politicising the judiciary. The immediate reason for this diagnosis was Żurek's loud intervention in the case of a drunk driver from the A1 motorway.
The A1 case that triggered the avalanche
On July 18, on the A1 motorway under Częstochowa, an Audi driver, according to media reports having nearly 2.7 alcohol and 2 prior driving bans, hit a truck. On the same day, he was released without proceeding the charges. The case sparked a wave of outrage. Waldemar Żurek, who combines the functions of the Minister of Justice and the lawyer General, instructed the national prosecutor Dariusz Korneluk to take supervisory action. As a result, the deputy territory lawyer in Lublin was recalled and the proceedings were transferred to the territory Attorney's Office in Czestochowa.
"Manual control charge"
It was this reaction that became an excuse for Peter Szymaniak to make a strong assessment. In the text entitled “Bilans Zurka? quite a few PR, and the mediocre effects" of the legal writer part of the diary indicated that the minister enters his predecessor's shoes: the individual control of a single case under media force is precisely the mechanics which the right accused Zbigniew Ziobrze. The difference he pointed out is bitter for the ruling camp. Ziobro worked in a strategy that was already unstable, so he could at least be effective.
Prosecutors are on alert.
Criticism has not been limited to publicism. Before violating the independency of the prosecutor, prosecutors themselves warned: Dr. Piotr Turek from the Union of Professional Prosecutors, Dr. Szymon Tarapata from the Jagiellonian University, and representatives of the Lex Super Omnia association. In their view, the top-down engagement in individual proceedings, even right in the public perception, creates a precedent that could work against a citizen in another case.
The promise you keep silent
In the background, the announcement returns, which was to separate the fresh power from the previous. The separation of the function of Minister of Justice and lawyer General was 1 of the pillars of run promises, and present it is spoken of little and less. As long as both functions stay in 1 hand, the minister retains tools for just specified interventions as the 1 after the A1 accident.
Symbol of a Broken Promise
The case besides took on a symbolic dimension due to the fact that it touched the foundation on which the ruling camp built its mandate. Supporters of the minister see in his reaction the consequence to scandalous negligence and real concern for road safety. Critics, on the another hand, see evidence that the mechanics of political force on the prosecutor's office remained the same and only the cabinet owner changed. It is this symmetry with the times of erstwhile power that most encroachs the camp, which until late made it its main charge.
Same mechanism, different hands.
The full dispute comes down to 1 question: who controls the prosecution and how. For years, the right wing condemned a model in which politicians search a circumstantial case. Now that the roles have turned, the same mechanics returns under a different sign. Is it possible to depoliticize the prosecutor’s office with all another authority eager to usage the same tool?
