Despite its appearance as a shining white fortress amidst the Polish capital’s diplomatic district, behind the polished exterior lies a thriving testbed for democracy guided by Poland’s fresh justice minister, Adam Bodnar. With the difficult task of halting an impending authoritarian takeover and re-establishing the rule of law, Bodnar’s assignment is nothing short of challenging.
His forerunner, Zbigniew Ziobro, had set the stage for a nationalist conservative overhaul via the Law and Justice (PiS) party, radically transforming the justice system, state broadcasting networks and the public prosecutor’s office.
Critics from both local and European platforms saw this agenda as a masked attempt to secure all state entities. From his commanding palace office, Bodnar retrospectively viewed the scheme as an overwhelming aspiration to mimic Hungary.
The system was structured to ensure perpetual authority with no scope for accountability. However, as Bodnar notes, Polish voters had other ideas.
The October election witnessed the PiS party winning the most votes, yet failing to secure a majority, leading to their removal by a coalition led by the ex-PM and past president of the European Council, Donald Tusk.
Nominating Bodnar as justice minister, Tusk acquired an individual renowned for his vocal critique of these unsettling reforms from his tenure as public ombudsman.
Maintaining the facade of a soft exterior, Bodnar’s astute legal acumen has earned him significant respect within the cabinet. As reported by the knowledgeable daily, Gazeta Wyborcza, he is seen as one of two trustworthy ministers, the other being foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski.
Managing this convoluted legal framework is no easy task. The obstruction Bodnar encountered was “as messy” as initially projected, if not worse. Additionally, his team uncovered a luxuriant slush fund, reportedly managed by Ziobro and his associates.
A thorough examination is now underway to establish whether 285 million złoty (€66 million) appropriated for the support of crime victims was in reality redirected by Ziobro for political advantages and bias institutions, specifically the Catholic Church.
Bodnar cited that Ziobro crafted a judicature structure that instilled the belief that, despite any wrongdoings they might commit, it would be nonviable to call them to question. This observation refers back to the instance when the preceding minister of justice afforded himself the duties of the public prosecuting attorney. Subsequently, this allowed Ziobro to exercise unparalleled dominance over case proceedings, dismissals, or postponements, through his devoted regional prosecutorial representatives. The full extent of this dominance is now gradually unravelling.
Bodnar intends to introduce a law to the parliament next month that will detach the prosecuting officer’s duties from his own. He has already begun marginalising public prosecutors appointed by Ziobro, who Bodnar critiques for prioritising the previous government.
Although Ziobro is battling cancer, Bodnar believes the pursuit of cases should proceed irrespective of his health condition. Procedures are currently in progress to eliminate the parliamentary immunity of several members. Concomitant parliamentary and prosecutorial investigations have commenced into the sub rosa inquiry and the Pegasus scandal, where the preceding government presumably acquired spyware to monitor their political adversaries’ mobile phones.
Bodnar refers to this controversy as an ‘atomic bomb’ that delivers new shocks every week. By next week, he plans to disclose the total number of individuals who were spied upon. “The inspection is taking place at this moment by the secret service,” he informs. He further adds that if there is a demonstration of power abuse, it would signify the right to recompense.
Despite the enormity of these trials, Bodnar seems unperturbed regarding his crucial duty of judicial reform. The nomination of certain judges perceived to be PiS loyalists sparked disagreement with Brussels. The European Court of Justice, in its unremitting rulings, stated that a section of Poland’s Supreme Court is incongruent with the EU law’s criterions for a court or tribunal.
When questioned about how he plans to amalgamate the two de facto legal systems, Bodnar shared that it would involve appointing new judges via a modified, politically unbiased judicial appointments body, sidelining questionable judges who were appointed under dubious circumstances during PiS era, or simply disregarding – and hence allowing time to pass – the Constitutional Court allies of PiS, which, as he noted, only commands 25% public confidence.
Tusk and his cohorts argue that the higher court lacks efficacy, prompting questions about the oversight of his proposed changes. How is the one in charge being managed? Bodnar reveals the controller is managed by the Polish population and their public opinions.
He further mentions that substantial modifications must wait until the major legal obstruction, President Andrzej Duda, who is allied with PiS, concludes his term the following year.
Bodnar has initiated a country-wide journey to advocate for a mindset alteration, encouraging judges and prosecutors to execute their duties appropriately. “The aim is not to exert control but to emphasise accountability for any detected malfeasance,” he articulates.
This indicates a changed stance compared to the PiS period, although the impacts of said period permeate greatly. A significant number of lawyers and other law officials were drawn into a devil’s bargain: expedited career progression during the PiS era under dubious and possibly illicit circumstances. The destiny of those individuals remains in question.
Bodnar argues that all individuals must undergo the examination process, acknowledging the challenges associated with striking a balance between thorough vetting and maintaining legal system stability.
For the time being, he expresses satisfaction if those who benefited from career progression during the PiS era acknowledge the fresh ambience and standards within the justice system.
He is resolute in his decision not to elevate any of these individuals to significant roles. Bodnar affirms his support is in favour of “unbiased judges who have campaigned for justice in the previous years,” including marginalised or politically manipulated minorities.
The LGBT+ community in Poland, who have been subjected to savage campaigns, provocation, and violence from government officials and their supporters, are placed at the top of his list.
Recognising the fact that many such campaigns were controlled by his ministry, Bodnar apologised publicly to the LGBT groups last February for the state-inflicted distress. He added, “It was indeed a shift for them to find a friend in this ministry, someone who actively supports LGBT+ rights”.
He also vowed to speed up critical legislative projects concerning hate speech, same-sex partnership, and gender recognition.
Four months into its tenure, the governing coalition remains stable in surveys, but there’s a growing restlessness about the slow rate of noticeable improvement. Bodnar’s commitment to restoring the rule-of-law has led to the thawing of EU funds, but this is subject to a strict deadline set by Brussels. Many in Europe, amongst others, characterise recent events in Poland as typical for a young democracy grappling with post-communist challenges. However, the Polish perspective is distinct: they suggest their experience serves as a warning for our immediate future amid the rise of anti-democratic tendencies in the Western world.
What insight does Bodnar believe others can draw from Poland’s example? He pauses before responding. He asserts that it’s crucial for democracies to cease presuming the assurance of freedom they offer, and pay attention to the substantial portion of the public who fail to comprehend the function of crucial democratic establishments, particularly the judiciary system.
“Bridging the gap between citizens and the legal system is vital, as is investing in effective communication and NGOs that could act as intermediaries,” he advised. “Avoid isolating the legal system, instead, promote their supportive role in the democratic state.”