The public prosecution service must regain public trust! Call for a fair, transparent and comprehensive review of political criminal proceedings and improved communication with citizens

Warsaw, 29 November 2024

Prof. Adam Bodnar
Attorney General of the Republic of Poland
Minister of Justice

Prosecutor Dariusz Korneluk
National Prosecutor

Prosecutor Katarzyna Kwiatkowska
Chairperson of the Panel of Prosecutors to investigate cases
of public interest by virtue of their subject matter and nature,
conducted and completed between 2016 and 2023

Honourable Minister, Honourable Prosecutors,

We, the authors of the “Appeal for the review of politically motivated prosecutorial proceedings from 2015 to 2023 and rehabilitation of victims” of 12 February, citizens of the Republic of Poland, supporting the victims of the arbitrary and highly questionable actions of the prosecutor’s office led by Zbigniew Ziobro, write to you with gratitude but also concern with regard to the steps taken as a result of our Appeal.

It was with clear satisfaction that we received the response to our Appeal, issued by you just three days after its publication, with full acceptance of the demands contained therein. We also appreciate that – six months after this announcement and numerous enquiries from the Open Dialogue Foundation and employers’ organisations – the National Prosecutor has appointed a “Panel of prosecutors to investigate matters of public interest’.

In recent weeks, we have noted the information, made public by the Chair of the Panel, Prosecutor Katarzyna Kwiatkowska, that at this stage the Prosecutor’s Office has identified approximately 600 questionable proceedings. This clearly confirms the need for an extensive and systemic audit, illustrating the potentially shocking scale of abuse and harm caused by politically motivated persecution in recent years. This figure also indicates that the audit should also continue thereafter. It is imperative that it can benefit – to our knowledge – those still coming forward to the National Prosecutor’s Office and NGOs who believe that their cases had a political context and were characterised by a number of serious violations.

In light of some worrying public statements by representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office’s leadership, we emphasise the importance of including in the above audit cases at all stages: from the pre-trial to the judicial stage. These cannot only be investigations that have already been completed.

Proceedings in which charges were made groundlessly can be dropped and indictments withdrawn at the court stage. The existing state of the law allows this, and this need is determined by the realities and challenges of the current transition period. On the other hand, the argumentation contained, inter alia, in a recent interview given by the Minister to Forbes magazine, which seems to go in the opposite direction, does not seem coherent. Passively waiting for court decisions would defeat the point of the audit process and the declarations you made earlier. It would also – in a situation of massive overload in the judiciary and problems with so-called ‘neo-judges’ – often entail waiting for years for flawless and final judgements, entangling those wronged by the actions of the prosecution in an essentially endless struggle with the system. Justice delayed this far fundamentally fails.

It is one thing to investigate the (equally necessary!) actions of the prosecution to provide legal protection to representatives of the previous ruling camp and those associated with them, and another to review the cases of those wrongly suspected and accused on political orders. It is these that were the subject of our appeal and of the response to it that you gave at the beginning of the year. We are also making this remark with regard to the public statement made by Prosecutor K. Kwiatkowska in the Polish Radio, which made us concerned about the scope of the current investigation of these proceedings.

We believe that the independence of the lead prosecutors, so often raised by the Minister and the new leadership of the Prosecutor’s Office, cannot in the current situation be treated as a fetish paralysing efforts to restore the rule of law and justice. The rightful reform proposals for the depoliticisation of the Prosecutor’s Office will be realised, we hope, after the change of President of the Republic of Poland and the unblocking of the legislative process, but the so-called transitional justice should be governed by its own laws. This is fully mandated by the unprecedented and systemic nature of the violations of the law, its instrumental and malicious application under the PiS government. There is no doubt that in a huge number of cases the Prosecutor’s Office acted in bad faith under the dictates of the previous government.

The failure to adequately supervise and replace personnel and the failure to remove ‘old’ lead prosecutors from sensitive investigations will only perpetuate the objective wrong-doing, as well as its perception. The same applies to the direct supervision of investigations, even at the level of heads of departments, as well as to the methods still in use (which include, for example, arrests for show or the persistence of asset bail, in isolation from the facts). The window of opportunity to carry out the necessary (even if temporarily makeshift) clean-up and restore public confidence in the institution you lead is closing very quickly.

At the same time, the complete impunity of the leading representatives of the PiS government, responsible for years of violations of human rights and the rule of law in Poland, allows them to twist reality also in the European and international forums. This is the case both in the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in contacts with the US authorities. MEPs such as Mariusz Kaminski, Maciej Wasik or Patryk Jaki, as well as former Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, do not bear any effective criminal responsibility, while painting themselves as victims of the allegedly illegal and criminal system led by Minister Adam Bodnar. When juxtaposed with the situation of many people drastically victimised by the actions of the prosecution and secret services between 2015 and 2023, this is particularly demoralising. It also makes one question the determination of the government and the prosecution to bring about the postulated and repeatedly declared settlements.

We are seriously concerned about recent replies to correspondence and requests for public information sent by the Open Dialogue Foundation and other social organisations to the National Prosecutor’s Office and its subordinate units, in particular to the letters (e.g. 1001-1.Ip.376.2024) of 13 and 16 September this year. The answers received from the public prosecutor’s office – after many weeks – look more like attempts to avoid an answer than to provide one. They are also saturated with bureaucratic newspeak, difficult to rationally interpret, which gives the impression of a clumsy explanation for inaction or helplessness on the part of the prosecutors, instead of a transparent and complete report on their activities to the citizens.

While we fully understand the secrecy of pre-trial proceedings, we draw attention to the far-reaching powers of the prosecutor’s office to communicate information about ongoing investigations and their activities. It is also necessary to maintain elementary consistency in this regard. It is indeed incomprehensible why – for example – proceedings investigated by the Economic Crime Department could be listed in a certain form, while lists of such proceedings (with the necessary anonymisation of names), are denied to the requesting organisations in relation to lists whose preparation was entrusted to regional prosecutors. Let us recall that these were to become the main basis for the examination of political investigations. As things stand, it is not even clear which of the investigations – including the lists previously submitted by civic organisations and the signatories of the Appeal of February this year – have been investigated as part of the Panel’s audit.

We would like to point out that there was also no answer to the questions concerning the results of the work of the special panel of prosecutors on the use of illegal pushbacks on the border with Belarus. Neither were detailed questions answered regarding the scope of verification of cases against participants in pro-democracy protests during the Law and Justice period.

Our incredulity was also aroused by the outcome of the ‘review’ carried out by the Economic Crime Department, in which its director, prosecutor Marek Wełna, found no irregularities in a number of highly controversial proceedings, widely known for their political background. Moreover, the process was allegedly “non-formalised” and based “on oral reports”, which, from the point of view of transparency and the possibility of its subsequent verification, arouses far-reaching astonishment. The high-profile case of entrepreneur Przemyslaw Krych also stands out against this backdrop, which – despite its media resonance, indicating the retaliatory nature of the Prosecutor’s Office’s actions, and its repeated submission for a declared review – was not included in it. For unknown reasons, this did not happen at the level of the Economic Crime Department, nor – if the information provided by the Public Prosecution Service is to be believed – as part of any other review process.

In a similar vein to prosecutor Marek Wełna, the Deputy Director of the Department of Organised Crime and Corruption appointed by Zbigniew Ziobro, prosecutor Daniel Lerman, did not find any shortcomings in the cases he supervised. They were conducted by the infamous ‘pezets’, i.e. Z. Ziobro’s special assignment departments. The question of whether prosecutor Lerman should continue in this position and – in lieu of an independent review – self-review his own (directly supervised) investigations seems rhetorical to the highest degree.

Another controversial and incomprehensible phenomenon is the superficial personnel changes in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In many cases, the previous lead prosecutors, conducting politically motivated cases during the Law and Justice party era, are still conducting them. Let us add that these are often the prosecutors present on the lists of “kings of life” in Z. Ziobro’s Prosecutor’s Office published by the “Lex Super Omnia” Association. The term obviously denoted the beneficiaries of the unprecedented politicisation of the prosecutor’s office.

The lack of personnel changes restoring an elementary sense of justice is particularly evident with regard to the structure of the aforementioned Department of Organised Crime and Corruption, co-directed by Zbigniew Ziobro’s appointees – the controversial prosecutor Lerman and prosecutor Agnieszka Hudyka. This applies to the local divisions, and the situation is particularly galling with regard to the Silesian Local Division, known for its handling of many political cases. It also draws the attention of the media, which are beginning to ask questions about the specific ‘protective umbrella’ extended over them. This is the only department of the National Prosecutor’s Office whose management has not been fundamentally changed.

In this context, the information provided by the National Public Prosecutor’s Office on 30 October, in response to a request from the Open Dialogue Foundation, confirming that no objective, independent review of the investigations of the above department has been carried out so far, is also completely incomprehensible. We would like to emphasise that the process of auditing political investigations cannot be of an arbitrarily selective nature and should cover all structures within the prosecutor’s office, including the military affairs departments, where they were also conducted (which prosecutor Wojciech Tomkiel and his superior, prosecutor Mieczysław Śledź, were known for).

The Katowice prosecution units were the motherland of Zbigniew Ziobro (who served his prosecutor’s apprenticeship there) and his closest entourage – the infamous heads of the prosecution and special services: Bogdan Święczkowski, Krzysztof Sierak, Tomasz Janeczek or Grzegorz Ocieczek. Many of their loyal associates are still in office and conducting questionable proceedings, which does not build trust. Over the years, it was in Katowice and Upper Silesia that key investigations were carried out and ABW and CBA activities of a priority nature for the previous political power were supervised. Over the years, starting with the first Law and Justice government, these led to various scandals and dramas, of which we will only recall at this point the case of the tragic death of former MP Barbara Blida. It was also in Katowice that political investigations against businessmen and managers were held – including Przemyslaw Krych, Krzysztof Kilian, Paweł Tamborski and Maciej Bodnar. These proceedings – and many others – are still ongoing or the same lead prosecutors continue to act as public prosecutors. This applies to both the Silesian Regional Division and the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Katowice.

The problem of difficult transitions, the relative lack of settlements and the almost complete lack of results of the victims’ rehabilitation process so far was also recognised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in its written declaration of 30 September this year entitled “Political prosecution in Poland from 2015 to 2023 must be audited and victims rehabilitated”. It indicates that: “the new government has started investigating such cases, and that some of the victims, such as Paweł Wojtunik or Jakub Karnowski, have already been partially rehabilitated. Yet, other politically motivated cases, including those of Przemysław Krych, Piotr Osiecki, Maciej Bodnar, Michał Lubiński, Rafał Markiewicz, Bartosz Kramek, Tomasz Misiak, Wojciech Łączewski and Marcin Fall, await similar re-evaluation.“

Equally disturbing are the ongoing cases of Zbigniew Komosa, Women’s Strike activists, pro-abortion activists, humanitarian activists working at the border with Belarus (such as Paweł and Justyna Wrabec or Ewa Natalia Moroz-Keczyńska and other co-defendants) and other managers and entrepreneurs, including Cezary Kucharski, Paweł Olechnowicz, Jacek Krawiec, Rafał Paluszkiewicz and Grzegorz Bielowicki. An elementary sense of justice is also challenged by the cases against Leszek Czarnecki (for disclosing a corruption proposal at the top of the government administration), Jacek Kapica, the long-standing head of the Customs Service, and Wojciech Kwaśniak, the former deputy head of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, who despite having survived an attempt on his life remains indicted. The proceedings against Mariusz Adamczewski, as retaliation for suing the Treasury before a foreign arbitration tribunal, are scandalous. It is outrageous that the Prosecutor’s Office continues to support an extraordinary complaint to convict actress Barbara Kurdej-Szatan for exercising her constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

We want our position to resound: prosecutors who do not inspire public confidence must not conduct controversial and questionable investigations. Major procedural decisions to the detriment of suspects, such as directing new indictments, should not be taken in audited cases until the review is completed. The audit should cover all investigations reported so far by community organisations.

Prosecutors who can be linked to the previous political power – who do not provide guarantees of independence – must also be removed from participation in the audit. We also believe that they should not act as public prosecutors. Cases where indictments have been handed down and where trials have not even started should be prioritised for possible dismissal.

Nor can long-standing, often diversionary pre-trial proceedings and cases that involve particular severity – linked, for example, to the maintenance of high property sureties for many years – suffer delays. When examining the political motivation, it is necessary to look very carefully at the genesis of the audited proceedings and the conflicts or collisions of suspects and defendants with the interests of the previous authorities. We hope that all these aspects will be taken into account.

We are convinced that action on behalf of the victims of persecution by Zbigniew Ziobro’s prosecutor’s office requires transparent, close and urgent cooperation with non-governmental organisations and the victims themselves, so that this disgraceful practice is never repeated again and its painful consequences cease to be the daily reality for hundreds of citizens of our country and their families. The drastic reputational, financial, family, health and professional consequences are compounded every day.

With best regards,

Shadow of the Mist: Grassroots Support for the Women’s Strike
Asymmetrist Foundation
Basta Foundation
Lambda Poland Foundation
Place on Earth Foundation
Ocalenie Foundation
Open Dialogue Foundation
Citizens of the Republic of Poland
Podlaskie Voluntary Humanitarian Aid (POPH)
Polish Business Council
Radio Free PL
Homokomando Association
Association Poland Fighting Against Fascism
Themis Judges Association
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski Square Association

and

Marek Belka, former Prime Minister of Poland, former Minister of Finance, former President of the National Bank of Poland
Andrzej Blikle, Professor at IPI PAN and Member of Academia Europaea
Michał Boni, former Minister for Digitalisation and Member of the European Parliament
Zbigniew Bujak, opposition activist in the People’s Republic of Poland, former Head of the Customs Service
Barbara Czerniawska, social activist
Michał Dadlez, Professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences and the University of Warsaw
Angelika Domańska, social activist
Jacek Dubois, lawyer
Lubomir Fajfer, President of the Independent Youth Movement Association, Secretary of the Council for Anti-Communist Opposition Activists and Persons Repressed for Political Reasons
Władysław Frasyniuk, opposition activist in the People’s Republic of Poland, former Chairman of the Freedom Union
Marek Gumkowski, President of Open Republic
Agnieszka Holland, director
Krystyna Janda, actress
Zbigniew Janas, democratic opposition activist in the People’s Republic of Poland, former MP and Chairman of the Board of the Stefan Batory Foundation
Anna Kacprzyk, psychologist
Jarosław Kurski, former First Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Gazeta Wyborcza
Marek Męczyński, Podlaskie Voluntary Humanitarian Aid
Karolina Mazurek Podlaskie Voluntary Humanitarian Aid
Wawrzyniec Mąkinia, Podlaskie Voluntary Humanitarian Aid
Janina Ochojska, Founder of Polish Humanitarian Action, former Member of the European Parliament
Janusz Onyszkiewicz, former Minister of Defence and Member of the European Parliament
Elżbieta Petrajtis-O’Neill, Member of the Programme Board of Open Republic
Maciej Pisuk, writer and scriptwriter
Andrzej Rojek, Kościuszko Foundation, Jan Karski Educational Foundation, POLIN Museum
Paula Sawicka, social activist, former president of Open Republic, POLIN Museum
Grażyna Staniszewska, former Senator and Member of the European Parliament
Leszek Ścioch, Podlaskie Voluntary Humanitarian Aid
Magdalena Środa, philosopher, Professor at the University of Warsaw
Tomasz Ulatowski, POLIN Museum
Przemysław Wiszniewski, journalist, board member of Open Republic
Piotr Wozniacki, tennis coach and footballer
Jerzy Wójcik, former Publishing Director, Gazeta Wyborcza, Media Liberation Fund Foundation
Damian Wutke, social activist
Krzysztof Zakrzewski, legal adviser, managing partner, Domański Zakrzewski Palinka

Artykuł The public prosecution service must regain public trust! Call for a fair, transparent and comprehensive review of political criminal proceedings and improved communication with citizens pochodzi z serwisu Open Dialogue Foundation.