The lower-house commission is examining the legality, conduct and purpose of Pegasus-related actions by the former Law and Justice (PiS) government, security services and police from November 2015 to November 2023.
Commission chair Magdalena Sroka, a lawmaker from the Polish People's Party (PSL), a junior government coalition partner, said the panel has questioned dozens of witnesses and has already filed notifications in several other cases linked to the system’s purchase and use.
Lawmakers on the investigative panel said on Friday, after a closed-door meeting, that the notifications will concern retired Brig. Gen. Maciej Materka, who led the Military Counterintelligence Service (SKW) from 2018 to 2022, and Piotr Pogonowski, who headed the Internal Security Agency (ABW) from 2016 to 2020 and has served on the management board of the National Bank of Poland since 2020.
Sroka said the two men are suspected of exceeding their powers and failing to fulfil their duties by allowing Pegasus to be used in both agencies without required security accreditation for systems handling classified information.
Sroka said accreditation provides the state’s guarantee that such systems are secure. Without it, she argued, information gathered through Pegasus "could be reaching the service of a foreign state."
She said the commission will ask prosecutors to examine potential offences under Article 231 of the criminal code, covering abuse of power and dereliction of duty by public officials, and Article 265, covering unlawful disclosure of classified information marked “secret” or “top secret” to someone "acting on behalf of a foreign entity."
In October last year, prosecutors filed an indictment against Michał Woś, a former deputy justice minister and a PiS lawmaker, over the transfer of PLN 25 million (EUR 6 million) from the government's Justice Fund for Pegasus.
Prosecutors say Woś signed a 2017 agreement to pass the funds to the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) beyond his authorisation.
Prosecutors have also said an inquiry carried out by the Internal Security Agency found Pegasus should have received cybersecurity accreditation, but never did.
Deputy commission chair Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska of the Civic Coalition (KO), the main government party, said agency heads are responsible for whether classified information collected by their services is protected, and that both chiefs had a duty to verify Pegasus’ safety before signing agreements.
She added that, according to declassified documents cited by the commission, concerns were raised inside both agencies that the software’s producer could have access to collected data.
Commission member Witold Zembaczyński, also from the Civic Coalition, said the common element in both cases was alleged abuse of power and failure to perform official duties.
He claimed political pressure to deploy Pegasus, and to assemble funding of PLN 60 million, drove the decisions.
Pegasus, developed by Israel’s NSO Group for use against terrorism and organised crime, can give operators covert access to a smartphone, including communications, stored files and the device’s microphone and camera.
Materka told the commission in May 2025 that he did not take part in purchase talks and learned of such systems only after becoming SKW chief in 2018.
He acknowledged there were doubts about risks linked to tools such as Pegasus but said the decision was made after analysis and that legal, logistics and technical units reviewed the matter, adding that the chief ultimately bears responsibility.
Pogonowski was brought before the commission on December 2, 2024 after failing to appear three times.
He said the Internal Security Agency had assessed Pegasus’ operation, effectiveness and security, and argued the tool was legal under Polish law and Constitutional Tribunal rulings.
He said advanced operational methods had helped protect Poland from threats including terrorism and espionage, and that service tools undergo broad legal and technical verification.
The broader Pegasus case is being examined by prosecutors, including a National Public Prosecutor’s Office team, focusing on whether officials exceeded their powers or failed in their duties, the legality of surveillance measures, and how the system was used.
(rt/gs)
Source: IAR, PAP, tvp.info