Postdoctoral doctor Sławomir Patyra commented in “Tak jest” on TVN24 Marshal Elżbieta Witek’s decision to reassume the vote on the adjournment of the meeting. It was, among others, his legal opinion that Witek was to refer to when deciding on the reassumption. – I wouldn’t expect it at all. The more so because on August 11 I was away from my place of residence, without access to a computer, in one of the amusement parks – he said.
On August 11, during the session of the Seym, at which the anti-TVN law was adopted, there was a controversial reassumption of the vote on the motion to postpone the meeting until September. First, the deputies adopted this motion, but after the break extended several times (first a 15-minute break, finally – over two hours), the Marshal of the Chamber Elżbieta Witek ordered a reassumption of the vote, supported by 229 Members, with one vote against and one abstention. In another vote, the Sejm rejected the motion to adjourn the session.
Elżbieta Witek, explaining then her decision on the reassumption, said that during the break she “consulted five lawyers” on the subject. All five opinions are dated April 2018.
Read more on Konkret24: Constitutionalists on the opinions of 2018 presented by Elżbieta Witek
Two lawyers, whose opinions were quoted by Marshal Witek, commented on TVN24’s decision. Postdoctoral doctor Sławomir Patyra he explained that “legal opinions are only the position of an expert on a particular issue.” – They are always situated in a specific context of events. It is absolutely inappropriate to refer to the opinion from three years ago in order to make a decision in the new factual and legal situation. In my opinion, this is a far-reaching abuse, he said.
Constitutionalist, Professor Ryszard Piotrowski, on the other hand, said: No conversation took place with me, no one called me.
Sławomir Patyra on the decision of the Sejm Marshal to reassume the vote
In the Wednesday edition of “Tak jest” on TVN24, Dr. Sławomir Patyra again referred to the situation.
He assessed that, in his opinion, the Marshal of the Sejm “broke the law”. – Not only because she referred to the opinion from years ago, maybe it is not the greatest failure on the part of the marshal. On the other hand, I have an overwhelming impression that the marshal deliberately misled both the deputies participating in the Sejm session at that time, and the public by saying untruthful three times during this session and in a very short time – he said.
Patyra was asked about the moment when he learned that Elżbieta Witek referred to his opinion. Did he guess that it was him, among other things, that the marshal would refer to? “I’m smiling because I absolutely don’t,” he replied.
– The day before yesterday evening, my friends and acquaintances, via SMS, expressed that they did not know that I had become an expert on this matter for Marshal Witek. And seriously: I would not expect it at all – he said. – The more that when the deliberations were held, on August 11, I was away from my place of residence, without access to a computer, in one of the amusement parks, quite far from Warsaw – he added.
He also pointed out that late in the evening he followed the effects of the meeting via information portals. – I did not even have the opportunity to observe these debates live, hence it was only when I found out that I was one of the experts consulted that I reviewed the course of (the meeting – ed.) Very meticulously – he described.
Dr. Patyra: Demanding an explanation from the marshal will be completely ineffective
In connection with this situation, will Patyra expect explanations from Elżbieta Witek? – This is a question that I have been dealing with for a few days. It seems to me that my demanding any explanations from the marshal will probably be completely unsuccessful – he replied.
– All the more so because so far, when it comes to the current term, as well as the previous term of parliament, my legal opinions, and I wrote a lot of them for the Sejm, concerning, for example, the Act on the Supreme Court, the National Council of the Judiciary, and the Constitutional Tribunal, did not enjoy special interest in the governing bodies of the chamber, he stressed.
– For me, enough compensation for a certain embarrassment is the fact that I can publicly, I try to do so, explain not only the circumstances related to the use of my surname without my will, but also the circumstances of whether this resolution on reassumption was legal or not – he explained.
Main photo source: TVN24