"I don't pack, definitely"
Judge Margaret Manowska referred to unconfirmed information suggesting that her word of office as First president of the ultimate Court may end earlier than planned. This was to be due to future changes in the judiciary and the National Judicial Council. Manowska assured that she did not intend to resign.
However, she expressed concerns about the anticipation of akin threats at TVP headquarters, and criticized the way public media changes were made, calling it “golden piracy”. She stressed that the goal is first determined and then an ideology is created that justifies it.
Manowska pointed out that in specified a process various authorities may appear, which talk about the defence of the Constitution, but the end consequence may be lamented. She suggested that loyalty claims may be required, in her opinion illegal verifications of judges and “protectors in public offices”. She recalled her experience from the times of martial law and stated that these actions associated with this period.
Finally, she commented on the Minister of Culture's decision to destruct public media, calling it a political decision that is in no way linked to culture. She expressed concerns as to whether, after this reform, anything else could hold.
You shouldn't make tense moves, due to the fact that erstwhile you shut down this kind of company, people who are there are suffering. said Manowska.
The pardon of Kamiński and Wąsik
President of the ultimate Court besides referred to the issue of pardoning Mariusz Kamiński and Maciej Wąsik by president Andrzej Duda in 2015, which was the subject of the dispute in the ultimate Court. The case went to the Court of Appeal and is to return to the ultimate Court. Manowska did not uncover her position on the matter, according to the tradition of judge.
She informed that the ultimate Court had not yet received a protest by Kamiński and Wąsik against the decision of the talker of the Sejm to extinguish their parliamentary mandates. She recalled that the appropriate body to consider the case was the Chamber of Extraordinary Public Affairs.
Let us callback that on December 20 erstwhile CBA chiefs were sentenced to 2 years in prison for actions during the “ground crisis”. The next day, the talker of the Sejm, Simon Holovnia, announced the termination of their seats. Politicians keep their innocence, which is supported by the President, who pardoned them in 2015. The lawyer of Kamiński and Wąsik filed a motion to discontinue the executive proceedings, citing a presidential pardon. The court now has 2 weeks to review the motions.
25 votes stronger than 50?
Let's go back to 2020. It was then that Margaret Manowska took the position of the first president of the ultimate Court. Although her rival Vladimir Wróbel won twice as many votes during the General Assembly of the ultimate Court – 50, president Andrzej Duda decided to nominate her.
Manowska is simply a habilitated doctor of legal science, an extraordinary prof. of the Łazarski University, and in 2007 she served as Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. Since 2016, she has been the manager of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecutor's Office and since 2018 a ultimate Court judge.
During the General Assembly of the ultimate Court, she won 25 votes, which represented only half of what Wróbel obtained. Experts and politicians stress that Manowska had political experience as Deputy Minister of Justice.
At the end of May 2020, erstwhile president of the Constitutional Court, prof. Andrzej Zoll, expressed a negative opinion on the President's decision. He argued for his position as the deficiency of a legal basis, as the candidates were not formally presented to the president by the General Assembly. He noted that the president of the General Assembly's deliberations had forwarded the candidates himself, which in his opinion lowered the prestige of the Polish ultimate Court and introduced an unhealthy working atmosphere.
Zoll stated that the president had harmed himself by ignoring the ultimate Court's view of the party's interests, of which he is simply a supporter, alternatively of caring for the welfare of the state. In his opinion, this decision “closes” the system, leaving the Ombudsman as the only office independent of the ruling party.
