Speaking at a news conference in Warsaw, Żurek argued that unveiling the presidential draft alongside last week’s veto of a government-backed amendment was meant to frighten judges and create what he called a chilling effect.
“Maybe we have to ask why the President's Office is showing this bill at this moment,” Żurek said. He added that the president “knows he is not able to block ‘plan B’ today,” a process meant to ensure judges, rather than politicians, effectively decide who fills the judicial seats on the council.
The National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), plays a central role in nominating judges.
The body has been at the heart of Poland’s rule-of-law dispute for years, after changes introduced under the former Law and Justice (PiS) government gave parliament the decisive role in choosing the 15 member judges.
Critics said that politicized judicial appointments and deepened legal uncertainty, while PiS maintained it was a needed reform.
The now-vetoed amendment would have restored direct and secret elections of those 15 member judges by all judges in Poland, with the vote organized by the State Electoral Commission (PKW).
Nawrocki rejected the bill and then sent his own proposal to parliament, saying it was designed to protect the right to a fair trial and prevent efforts to challenge judicial appointments.
'Legal Polexit'
Żurek said the presidential draft would amount to a “legal Polexit,” a reference to Poland drifting out of the European Union’s legal order.
He argued it would breach constitutional principles including the separation of powers and the independence of courts, and could allow the president to take control over the entire process of selecting judges to the council.
He also said the proposal includes criminal penalties for assessing whether a judge was appointed lawfully.
Żurek said the draft foresees prison terms of six months to five years for such assessments, and claimed this was aimed at deterring judges from questioning the appointment system.
Żurek suggested the project was prepared inside the president’s office, and alleged it was shaped by people linked to former justice minister Zbigniew Ziobro.
He said a representative of a nongovernmental organization had pointed out that the justification file listed lawyer Bartosz Lewandowski as its author, and he presented slides linking Lewandowski to the right-wing group Ordo Iuris, and to several high-profile figures from the previous administration.
Żurek also referred to photos which, he said, showed Lewandowski visiting the presidential palace and traveling with former deputy justice ministers Łukasz Piebiak and Marcin Romanowski, as well as activist Robert Bąkiewicz, and former judge Tomasz Szmydt who has since absconded to Belarus and is wanted in connection with allegations of spying.
He described Piebiak as reported in the media as a leading figure in a past "hate" scandal involving the justice system, and reminded that Romanowski is wanted under a European arrest warrant in a probe into alleged irregularities in the Justice Fund.
In another claim, Żurek said he had seen material he described as a list of law firms recommended by the Russian embassy, with Lewandowski's firm in first place.
“You must draw your own conclusions,” he told reporters. He added that everyone has a right to legal defense and lawyers have the right to represent clients of their choice.
The minister’s comments came as parliament moved to advance "plan B," a workaround after the presidential veto.
Under current rules inherited from the PiS era, judges can be nominated by groups of judges, but the final choice of the 15 judicial members is made by the Sejm, the lower house.
The backup plan involves judges holding internal assemblies to identify candidates whose judicial status is widely seen as beyond dispute, then submitting those names to the Sejm.
On Friday, lawmakers adopted a resolution declaring that the Sejm will respect the judiciary’s indications when selecting the 15 judge members.
Żurek said preparations for such votes are underway across Poland’s courts.
“We have an old, bad law on the National Council of the Judiciary, but using these provisions judges want, from the bottom up, to choose a proper National Council of the Judiciary,” he said.
He argued the president’s veto was an attempt to “cement the system” and would deepen chaos in the courts. He also rejected the president’s claim that the government bill would divide judges into “better and worse,” saying it would have given all judges the right to vote while setting standard experience requirements for candidates.
(rt)
Source: IAR, PAP