Police and the Ministry of the Interior and Administration officially maintained that no one was detained on May 15. We have obtained the official detention report of the assistant to the CEO of TV Republika. The document, signed by the officers, is riddled with glaring errors, contradictory timestamps, and false data. Everything points to a desperate attempt to cover up the unlawful use of handcuffs. The prosecution has been delaying key decisions for weeks.
At the end of last week, the police changed their narrative regarding the intervention at the apartment of Tomasz Sakiewicz. Initially, it was claimed that no one had been detained. Meanwhile, a detention report of the assistant to the CEO of TV Republika was drawn up. We have obtained this document. It contains conflicting information inconsistent with the actual events.
False statements
On May 15, 2026, police intervened at the apartment of the CEO of TV Republika, Tomasz Sakiewicz, following a false alarm. Officers searched all rooms, and Sakiewicz’s assistant was placed in handcuffs.
The police issued a statement on the matter. “The police were notified that at this address there is a person whose behavior poses a threat to their life,” the May 15 statement read. “After carrying out the necessary checks, the officers concluded the intervention. No one was detained,” the police reported on the day of the incident.
This statement was not truthful, just like the claims made by representatives of MSWiA. This is evidenced by the document we describe – the detention report of Sakiewicz’s assistant. It was signed by two officers who carried out the intervention at his apartment. The date of its preparation is May 15.
False information
Nothing in the document matches – neither the times nor the facts. It appears to be a desperate attempt to legitimize mistakes, including the unjustified use of handcuffs.
In the section describing the reason for detention, we read: “A person suspected of failing to provide identification details to an authorized authority on May 15, 2026.” The document is accompanied by a notice outlining the rights of a detained person.
At 01:44 pm – according to the report – the “detention” began. At 01:54 pm, the assistant’s release time was recorded. In reality, however, it happened earlier. The police car left the building on Wiktorska Street in Warsaw at 01:52 pm. There is evidence – photographs with exact timestamps taken by the assistant. Where did this two-minute discrepancy come from?
There is more false information in the police report. The recorded height and weight of the detained woman are incorrect. In reality, she is taller and 15 kilograms lighter than stated in the document. Was this meant to justify a false claim of a scuffle and the need to use handcuffs?
Course of events
According to information obtained from police sources, confirmed by the prosecution, the patrol arrived at Sakiewicz’s property at 01:40 pm – 11 minutes after the signal from the Emergency Notification Center, which had responded to what turned out to be a false report. At 01:41 pm – according to police documentation – the intervention began. At 01:42 pm, a body camera (only one, not two) was activated – a device recording video and audio from the officer’s perspective, mounted at chest level. Why did this happen a minute after the formal start of the intervention? At 01:43 pm, officers entered Sakiewicz’s apartment. At 01:44 pm, officers, without proper identification, used handcuffs on the assistant.
At 01:54 pm – according to internal police documentation, consistent with the detention report (but inconsistent with reality) – officers left the apartment and drove away. This is where the body camera recording is supposed to end. Formally, however, the intervention was logged as completed around 01:40 pm.
The report itself indicates that its preparation ended at 01:45 pm. At 01:30 pm, the assistant was questioned at the police station on Malczewskiego Street. Only afterward, an hour later – at 01:30 pm – did she receive the detention report to sign.
Prosecutorial inaction and withheld footage
According to the report, the Warsaw prosecutor’s office was informed of the detention on May 15. Since then, it has done virtually nothing. Investigators are considering whether to separate the police intervention into a separate proceeding. Weeks are passing, and no formal investigation has been launched. The case is being handled by the District Prosecutor’s Office in Warsaw.
The police have already questioned the assistant, who filed a complaint. This week, she is to be questioned by a prosecutor, who has still not decided whether to initiate proceedings.
So far, footage from the body camera of one of the officers who entered Sakiewicz’s apartment has not been released. For now, the prosecutor does not consent to its publication. “Not at this stage,” said spokesperson Piotr Antoni Skiba.
Tomasz Sakiewicz said on TV Republika that he still does not have access to the police recordings from the intervention. Such a possibility was mentioned in the Senate by Deputy Minister of the Interior and Administration Czesław Mroczek.
The mysterious ambulance
At the scene, in front of the building where Sakiewicz lives and has his office in Warsaw’s Mokotów district, an ambulance also appeared alongside the police. Paramedics first rang the intercom to Sakiewicz’s apartment, and only afterward did the officers enter.
In the documentation of Meditrans, which carried out the dispatch and provided the crew, nothing matches. There is a note indicating the ambulance departed for the call at 01:38 pm. The exact same time is listed as the moment of arrival. We were told this is highly unusual. There is also no record of the intervention being started or completed – information that should be included in such documentation.
Facts are being concealed here as well. Tomasz Sakiewicz sent a letter to the Mazovian Voivodeship Office, seeking details of the ambulance intervention and the grounds on which paramedics were called to his apartment. The Mazovian Voivodeship Office, Department of State Emergency Medical Services, prepared a response – refusing to provide the information.