“The attempt to strip Cenckiewicz of access to classified information was unlawful from beginning to end,” said Michał Rachoń following the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed the cassation appeals filed by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. “The problem is that they may be completely incapable of complying with any law,” added Tomasz Sakiewicz.
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeals lodged by the Chancellery of the Prime Minister against the rulings of the Voivodeship Administrative Court, which had overturned the revocation of the security clearance of Prof. Sławomir Cenckiewicz, the current head of the National Security Bureau. With this decision, the court concluded the legal dispute and confirmed that Prof. Cenckiewicz retains access to classified information.
The case was commented on by Michał Rachoń in the podcast 13th Floor.
“They keep saying there is no president, that Czarzasty is the president, that they are removing the president. They got hit, and they knew they would, because they knew the attempt to strip Cenckiewicz of access to classified information was unlawful from start to the very end. They were well aware of it. They had already received court rulings on the matter, but frankly, they don’t give a damn about such things and won’t do anything about it,”
he said.
He added that “this is grounds for Tusk’s resignation, because it was to Tusk that the Military Counterintelligence Service appealed.”
“Stróżyk should have long ago gone somewhere near the Kremlin walls, stayed there, and collected a pension from them or whatever (…) This is that crowd, a pro-Russian crowd that has a kind of phobia about exposing their pro-Russian policy. Since Prof. Cenckiewicz was exposing it, and President Karol Nawrocki is an anti-Russian president, and the Kremlin knows this very well, this pro-Russian group in Poland is attacking the president in this way. For that reason alone, Siemoniak, Tusk, Stróżyk, Dusza – immediate resignation,”
he argued.
Tomasz Sakiewicz, in turn, stated that “firstly, they did not have to be certain what the court of second instance would do, just as they did not have to be certain what the court of first instance would do or how far it would go. In fact, the biggest blow was delivered by the first-instance court, which invalidated their decision and made access to the files immediately enforceable.”
“They already failed to comply with the first-instance court’s ruling, and the world didn’t collapse, right? ‘We whistle at the courts,’ to quote a classic line from the trilogy, and the world doesn’t fall apart, so the same applies to the second instance. But they might have hoped that some judge would at least partially alter the ruling. None did. That’s a problem. But they concluded that this ruling is not that significant, that in fact it only authorizes them to restart the procedure. So until they begin and complete it, and they will be the ones deciding, it will continue,”
he said.
He added that “the problem is that they may be entirely incapable of complying with any law and have this mindset; yet, in the name of this very law they themselves disregard, they will now try to strip the president of his prerogatives, and perhaps even his office, because in their view it is the president who does not comply with the law as they interpret it.”
“This logic is very well known from communist times,”
he concluded.