back to top

    Poland’s Supreme Court Overturns Pardon of Interior Minister Kaminski, Orders Case Re-Examination

    In a significant development, Poland’s Supreme Court has invalidated the suspension of Mariusz Kaminski’s case, the country’s interior minister and former head of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA), despite his prior presidential pardon. The Supreme Court has referred the case to a district court for re-examination, marking a decisive twist in the ongoing legal proceedings.

    Back in March 2015, the Warsaw-Srodmiescie District Court initially sentenced Kaminski and Maciej Wasik, the former deputy head of the CBA (now serving as a deputy interior minister), to three years in prison for abuses of power and engaging in illicit activities. However, President Duda issued a pardon on November 16, 2015, not allowing the District Court to consider their appeals. This move also extended clemency to two other individuals convicted in the case.

    During Tuesday’s verdict, Judge Piotr Mirek orally justified the Supreme Court’s decision, asserting that the administration of justice falls under the exclusive purview of the common courts and the Supreme Court in the Polish legal system. He emphasized the courts’ authority to interpret laws, statutes, and the constitution while administering justice.

    This annulment of the suspension seems to contradict a recent ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal, which determined that President Duda had acted within his rights in granting a pardon to Kaminski. The tribunal further stated that the Supreme Court does not hold jurisdiction over the president’s prerogative to extend clemency. The conflicting legal interpretations have introduced additional complexity into the case.

    With the Supreme Court’s decision to reopen Kaminski’s case, the interior minister now faces the prospect of a re-examination of the charges against him. The outcome of the upcoming trial will have far-reaching implications for the legal landscape in Poland, particularly regarding the extent of presidential powers and the role of the judiciary in the administration of justice.


    More in section