This is a red herring – assessed the first president of the Supreme Court, Małgorzata Manowska, in “One on One” on TVN24. She referred to the initiation of an investigation by the National Prosecutor's Office into her failure to fulfill her duties as the chairwoman of the State Tribunal. It concerns the failure to convene a session of the full bench of the Tribunal within the time limit resulting from the regulations. Asked whether she would use her judicial immunity in this case, she said: – I have no other choice, because a judge is not allowed to waive his immunity.
The National Prosecutor's Office initiated investigation into the failure to fulfil obligations by Małgorzata Manowskachairwoman of the State Tribunal and first president of the Supreme Court. This concerns the failure to convene a session of the full bench of the Tribunal within the time limit specified in the regulations – the prosecutor's office explained.
In March, a group of judges of the State Tribunal asked Manowska to convene a full bench session. They are asking for the introduction of a drawing of lots for adjudicating panels (in the first and second instance) into the rules of the Tribunal, instead of their appointment by the chairwoman of the Tribunal. They also want the sessions of adjudicating panels of the Tribunal to be appointed by the chairwoman of the given panel, and they are also asking for the sessions of the full bench of the Tribunal to be public. Due to the lack of response, the judges of the Tribunal sent a letter to representatives of the highest authorities in Poland, including the president and prime minister, in which they accused Manowska of deliberate obstruction. In response, Manowska announced that the panels of the Tribunal would be appointed by drawing lots, and previously she refused to allow the judges of the Tribunal to convene a session of the Tribunal in order to change the rules.
Manowska: a judge cannot waive his immunity
Referring to the case on Saturday in “One on One” on TVN24, the chairwoman of the State Tribunal and the First President of the Supreme Court assessed it as a substitute topic.
– Firstly, the regulations, when it comes to changing the regulations of the State Tribunal, contain a special provision that only the chairman of the State Tribunal may submit this issue for discussion. Secondly, the applicants did not observe the basic principle of legislative technique, they did not justify their project, which was brought to my attention by other members of the State Tribunal. I set a deadline for correcting this deficiency, so as not to waste time and to know what we are supposed to discuss and why such changes are being proposed. To date, the justification has not been received – said Manowska.
In response to the prosecutor's office pointing to the provision of the regulations which states that the chairman of the Tribunal is obliged to convene a meeting of the Tribunal in full composition within 45 days upon a written request of at least five members of the Tribunal, Manowska replied that “the purpose of this meeting must be indicated”.
Asked whether she would use her judicial immunity in this case, she said: “I have no other choice, because a judge is not allowed to waive his immunity.”
Asked if she would like this immunity to be lifted if the prosecutor's office wanted to press charges against her, she replied that she would like to “work in peace”. – Let them present some charges first – she added.
– They say that I have four criminal proceedings, but I am formally unaware of any of them – said Manowska.
When asked if she would go to the hearing if the prosecutor's office invited her, she replied, “as a witness, when I'm invited, yes.”
Manowska: It was a meeting of wolves who were discussing how to eat a sheep
Manowska also commented on the Prime Minister's Friday meeting Donald Tusk and the Minister of Justice Adam Bodnar with the legal community, which concerned the process of restoring the rule of law in Poland. Bodnar said after the meeting that, among other things, the assumptions of the draft act prepared together with the Codification Commission of the Judiciary and Public Prosecution System, concerning the regulation of the status of judges who were appointed after 2018, i.e. the so-called neo-judges, were discussed.
The First President of the Supreme Court was asked whether she would submit to the verification procedure of judges appointed by the neo-NCJ if such regulations come into force. – Absolutely not – she replied.
She assessed that “yesterday's meeting, using an allegory, was a meeting of wolves who were deliberating on how to eat sheep, without the participation of the sheep that were to be eaten”. – The Prime Minister pompously announced that an agreement had been reached with lawyers. With which lawyers? This is simply an absolutely one-sided activity. We, the “neonists”, were not invited to this meeting – she said.
– Apparently the Prime Minister and Minister Bodnar were afraid of difficult questions. For example, why they want to treat judges who applied the law in force at the time as criminals – she added.
– I also called on that government, after all, there were my open letters, and I call on this government to sit down and start acting honestly – said Manowska.
Malgorzata Manowskatvn24
Manowska to return to the court of appeal? “If there are regulations, I will consider the situation”
As she said, “the best thing about these proposals (presented by Bodnar-editor) is the institution of 'active regret', i.e. self-criticism”. – The bard of self-criticism was Joseph Stalin, who considered it an important tool working to win the proletariat revolution. It is a tool that breaks people's spines, or at least tries to do so – she added.
– The question is whether Mr. Editor would like your case to be heard by a judge with a broken spine – said the First President of the Supreme Court.
– Do you mean that the government wants to break the spines of judges? – asked the host of the program Marcin Zaborski. – Yes, exactly – answered Manowska. She assessed that “the introduction of any verification mechanism will already be a standard used in future governments”.
Asked if she would return to the court of appeal if such regulations were in place, she said that “if there were regulations, she would consider the situation, what to do”. – As I understand it, I will have some choice and I will certainly not make any move that would undermine the president's constitutional prerogative to appoint judges. Our constitution says and the law says that the president appoints to successive positions in various courts (…) Now I am appointed to the Supreme Court and no European tribunal has said at any point that we are not judges – she added.
Manowska: the president chose me because I did not speak out on political issues
Manowska also referred in “One on One” to her long-standing acquaintance with the president Andrzej Duda. Asked if she saw any conflict of interest, she assessed that “if someone wants to find a field for conflict of interest, they will always find it.”
She added that “everyone simply has some friends, acquaintances and it's hard for them to hide in the closet because of that”. – I don't make any decisions in the case of the president in relation to his decisions. And the fact that we've known each other for 17 years, because we met at the Ministry of Justice, the president was the deputy minister of justice at the time, absolutely does not mean that I should pretend that I don't know the president – she said.
– Can I really, as a citizen, not suspect that there is a connection between your friendship with the president and the fact that, thanks to the president's decisions, you ended up in the Supreme Court and took up the position of First President of the Supreme Court? – asked Zaborski.
– Not thanks to the president's decisions, but thanks to her 30 years of hard service and also scientific activity as a postdoctoral degree holder at Lazarski University – said Manowska.
The host of the program noted that there were various candidates for this position and the president saw how many votes they received. He recalled that Włodzimierz Wróbel had 50 votes and Manowska 25. – He chose me, who did not speak in the media on political issues. He did not choose Mr. Judge Wróbel, who at that time was already a star in the media and had very political statements on these important social issues. And I am not revealing any open secret here, because the president spoke in the media in this way at that time and justified his decision in this way – she said.
Manowska on the justice system
She was also asked about the state and pace of work in the justice system. “Mentally, it's in ruins,” she said.
– I have one case in court on my behalf, so I can see that he is not working efficiently. However, this lack of efficiency has certainly been worsened by the fact that the parties are now starting to apply for the judge's exclusion – she said.
Main image source: TVN24