Adam Bodnar does not recognise the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs, yet he sent a prosecutor to attend its session, sent official letters to the chamber, and ultimately… filed a motion to dismiss an electoral protest submitted by a citizen alleging irregularities. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court upheld the protest in 11 out of 12 electoral commissions but stated that the errors did not affect the outcome of the election.
Today at 9:00 a.m., the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court began a series of three public hearings concerning protests against the presidential election, among them, those which led to the decision to verify ballot papers. The case is being handled by Judges Adam Redzik, Aleksander Stępkowski, and Paweł Wojciechowski.
The issue arose at the very beginning, when a prosecutor sent by Minister Adam Bodnar appeared in the courtroom. It turned out that she did not have proper legal authorisation. The court allowed her two days to provide the appropriate credentials. According to documents held by the Supreme Court, Prosecutor Jacek Bilewicz had been authorised by Bodnar to act in electoral matters.
Interestingly, despite Bodnar’s public statements that the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs “is not a court,” the female prosecutor clearly addressed it as “Your Honours”—indicating that she, in fact, acknowledges the legitimacy of both the court and the chamber.
The first protester, Mrs. Magdalena Miazek-Mioduszewska, did not appear in court. The court dismissed three motions—one to transfer the case to the Labour Chamber, another requesting the disqualification of judges, and a third… filed by the Vice-Chairman of the National Electoral Commission (PKW). The latter is a legal oddity, as only the PKW Chairman, Sylwester Marciniak, is authorised to represent the Commission.
Mrs. Miazek-Mioduszewska’s protest was also dismissed, at the request of Minister Adam Bodnar. “This must be shocking for the ‘Democrats’: the Prosecutor General moved to dismiss the protest. Mr. Adam Bodnar stands against the protester. Just don’t tell Attorney Roman Giertych,” commented lawyer Dariusz Lasocki.
Mrs. Miazek-Mioduszewska filed a protest concerning over a dozen electoral commissions in Poland, based on information she had heard in the media. The commissions listed in her protest involved the following incidents, confirmed or refuted by Dariusz Lasocki:
- Kraków No. 95 – votes were counted correctly but entered incorrectly in the protocol [vote misattribution]
- Oleśno – one vote miscounted, error in the protocol [vote misattribution]
- Mińsk Mazowiecki – one invalid vote, counted correctly but with an error in the protocol
- Strzelce Opolskie – counted correctly, protocol error [vote misattribution]
- Grudziądz – counted correctly, protocol error
- Gdańsk – two-vote discrepancy, protocol error [vote misattribution]
- Bielsko-Biała – 160 votes miscounted, to the detriment of Trzaskowski
- Tarnów – no error, everything matches the protocol
- Katowice – counting error
- Tychy – no counting errors, protocol error
- Kamienna Góra – Trzaskowski’s votes wrongly attributed to Nawrocki (this is the second commission with such an issue)
- Wieniec – vote misattribution, but votes were counted correctly
Lasocki aptly summarised the absurdity of the situation:
“So it goes like this:
- Adam Bodnar does not recognise the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs;
- Yet he sends a prosecutor to its session;
- Moreover, he sends official letters to this Chamber;
- And finally—the bombshell—Adam Bodnar moves to dismiss the protest of Mrs. Miazek, who alleges irregularities in a dozen commissions, probably modelled after Roman Giertych’s template,” wrote Attorney Lasocki.
First Protest Dismissed
In assessing the allegations raised in the protest concerning 12 local electoral commissions, the Supreme Court found that in 11 of them, various irregularities occurred, but concluded that they had no impact on the election outcome. In the case of the commission in Tarnów, the protest was deemed unfounded.
In the justification, Supreme Court Judge Adam Redzik stated that irregularities were identified during inspections, but the assessment of whether these mistakes were accidental or deliberate falls under the jurisdiction of the prosecutor’s investigation.
“Are such situations unusual? Apparently not, as the Supreme Court has dealt with similar issues before—rulings in 2010 addressed comparable irregularities,” noted Judge Redzik.