Tomasz Sakiewicz, president of TV Republika, has received a response to his inquiry addressed to the services of the Mazovian Voivode. The broadcaster’s CEO sought details concerning the ambulance service intervention carried out during a false emergency call at his apartment. The Mazovian Voivodeship Office, however, refused to disclose the requested information.
As a reminder, in May 2026, police officers intervened at Tomasz Sakiewicz’s residence following a false report alleging a threat to life. During the operation, officers handcuffed Aleksandra, an assistant to the TV Republika CEO.
Sakiewicz accuses the officers of failing to identify themselves during the intervention and unlawfully detaining his assistant before escorting her outside and leaving her there as they concluded their actions. The incident sparked significant controversy and became one of the focal points of the public debate surrounding a wave of false emergency reports targeting politicians and public figures.
In addition to police officers, an ambulance crew was also dispatched to the building in Warsaw’s Mokotów district where Sakiewicz both lives and maintains his office. According to reports, paramedics were the first to ring the intercom at his apartment, with police officers entering only afterward. Documentation from Meditrans, the ambulance service provider responsible for the dispatch and crew, contains several irregularities. The records indicate that the ambulance was dispatched at 1:38 p.m., yet the very same time is also listed as the moment of arrival. We have been informed that such an entry is highly unusual. The documentation also lacks any notation regarding the commencement or conclusion of the intervention, information that should normally be included in official records, as Niezalezna.pl previously reported.
Tomasz Sakiewicz subsequently sent a formal inquiry to the Mazovian Voivodeship Office, seeking details of the ambulance intervention and clarification regarding the grounds on which emergency medical personnel had been dispatched to his residence. The State Emergency Medical Services Department of the Mazovian Voivodeship Office prepared a response, one that amounted to a refusal.
Refusal to disclose information
The Office’s response leaves little room for interpretation. The services subordinate to Voivode Mariusz Frankowski will not provide the information requested by Tomasz Sakiewicz.
“In light of the above, I respectfully inform you that there are no legal grounds for disclosing the data requested,”
reads the letter signed by Wiesława Rybicka-Bogusz, Deputy Director of the State Emergency Medical Services Department.
The Office cites a specific legal provision as the basis for its decision. Under the Act of September 8, 2006, on State Emergency Medical Services, Article 24b establishes a limited list of entities authorized to request data from the State Emergency Medical Services Dispatch Support System (SWD PRM). According to the provision cited in the letter, data from the SWD PRM, including call recordings, personal data of the reporting individual, information concerning other persons identified during the call, geographical coordinates, contact details, and incident descriptions, may be disclosed solely upon request from a court, prosecutor’s office, the police, the Patient Ombudsman, or the National Health Fund.
Tomasz Sakiewicz has made no secret of his frustration with the decision, describing it as scandalous. In his view, a person who was the subject of such a report has the right to know on what basis emergency services were dispatched to their home. Why, he asks, are the authorities unwilling to confirm or deny the information previously reported by Niezalezna.pl? For now, those questions remain unanswered.
“Today I received a letter stating that the ambulance service refuses to tell me who called them to my home alongside the police,” Sakiewicz said on TV Republika.
“I wanted to be certain whether it was actually the police who requested the ambulance, and secondly, at what time. The response time was critically short. There are only two possibilities: either they were called before the alarm was made, or there were actually two separate alarms, and we know about only one of them.”
“They were supposedly responding to something that was expected to cause an explosion, yet there was no fire brigade present. None of it adds up. It is already known that at least one recording is missing, and there are also no recordings from the police vehicle. One of the available recordings is too short and does not match the timeline. (…) You cannot conduct a search of someone’s home without authorization from a court or prosecutor, and such decisions can be appealed. I have nothing to appeal against. (…) They storm into someone’s home, handcuff people, take them away, and then never obtain formal approval for what they did. It is a dangerous absurdity that should concern every citizen. Why was I never served with authorization confirming the search?”
Sakiewicz asked during a program hosted by Miłosz Kłeczek.