More e-mails leaked from the mailbox of Michał Dworczyk, the head of the prime minister’s office. The disclosed correspondence concerns, among others, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska, who could take part in the meetings concerning the head of the Supreme Court chamber. Judge Maciej Mitera, a former spokesman of the National Council of the Judiciary, said in TVN24’s “Fakty po Faktach” that he “did not see anything wrong” in the fact that consultations were to take place between the president and prime minister’s circle on this matter.
According to the correspondence that appeared on Wednesday on the website publishing e-mails that are to come from Dworczyk’s mailbox, both Prime Minister Morawiecki and President Przyłębska could have had a direct impact on the election of the acting president of the Supreme Court of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs. It is an exceptionally important chamber which, among other things, rules on the validity of the elections.
In the allegedly published correspondence between Dworczyk and Morawiecki, the head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister informs that the president asks for the preparation of a list of people who are critically assessed by the prime minister and “does not see the possibility of countersigning for the position of head of the new chamber of the Supreme Court”. According to the correspondence, the president would choose a person for the position only from candidates who were not negatively assessed by the prime minister.
Countersignature in the case of appointing the acting president of the Supreme Court chamber was necessary, because the constitution (Article 144) does not provide for appointment to such a position as part of the president’s prerogatives – it only mentions the first president and presidents of the Supreme Court. Such a possibility is given by the Law on the Supreme Court by PiS – but he cannot do it without the consent of the prime minister.
Mitera: There was no breach of the principle of the separation of powers
Judge Maciej Mitera, a member of the new National Council of the Judiciary, its former spokesman and president of the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście, spoke about this situation in “Fakty po Faktach” on TVN24.
Mitera argued that in this case there was no breach of the principle of the separation of powers, as indicated by many commentators, because the described situation concerned the president’s prerogative, and the prime minister was to countersign it, so both offices belong to the executive branch.
– If the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister countersigns, it is natural for me that he would probably like to know what he is counting and how to suggest, for example, the head of the state – continued Mitera.
The former spokesman of the National Council of the Judiciary argued that “in the Western Hemisphere, there are probably similar standards behind the evaluation”. He mentioned the United States here.
– Everyone sitting in the Oval Office also has their advisers. It is not that the president (USA – ed.) Himself wonders who to appoint in the cabinet. He must consult it, he continued.
Mitera: I didn’t say anything about president Julia Przyłębska
The leader, Piotr Kraśko, asked his guest many times about the role of the president of the Constitutional Tribunal in the decision-making process. Judge Mitera, however, did not refer directly to the assumption that the shared correspondence referred to the president of the Constitutional Tribunal, Julia Przyłębska. In the e-mails we read about “Julia’s president”.
– I did not say anything about President Przyłębska, but I believe that the circle of the Prime Minister has the right (to – editor) with the countersignature here. Which does not change the fact that the final decision is made by the head of state – emphasized Mitera. He added that “he does not see anything wrong with it”, that consultations between the people around the president and the prime minister on this matter were to take place.
Mitera: what is the evidence that the president was guided by some directions or pressure?
Only at one point in the conversation the president of the Constitutional Tribunal referred to the alleged participation in the talks. However, he did not do it directly, and he referred it to a completely different situation, in which she would not talk to representatives of the executive but with another representative of the judiciary.
– If the first president of the Supreme Court would talk to the president of the Constitutional Tribunal about certain candidates, it is difficult for me to say, do you see anything wrong with that? – he asked the program leader.
Mitera: It’s not a beauty contest
– Where do you have evidence that the president was guided by some directions or pressure? I believe that he made a sovereign decision – he turned to the leader again.
– This is not a beauty contest, it is really worth consulting and talking in the scientific and legal environment – said the guest of “Fakt after Fakt”.
Main photo source: TVN24