Tomasz Sakiewicz has submitted a request to the prosecutor’s office seeking clarification regarding the content of a summons for questioning scheduled for May 20. The head of Telewizja Republika argues that public statements made by National Prosecutor Dariusz Korneluk, as well as media reports, may suggest a possible change in his procedural status. The filing cites remarks concerning Article 239 of the Polish Penal Code and the issue of “aiding an offender” in the case involving Zbigniew Ziobro.
Tomasz Sakiewicz submitted what he described as a “Request for Clarification of the Content of the Summons Dated May 11, 2026.” The document concerns a summons for questioning as a witness in proceedings against Zbigniew Ziobro and others.
In the filing, Sakiewicz states that after receiving the summons, media publications and statements by National Prosecutor Dariusz Korneluk appeared which — as he argues — may indicate the possibility of a change in the nature of his participation in the proceedings.
Among the remarks cited was a statement by Korneluk quoted by the portal tvn24.pl. The National Prosecutor spoke about the need to clarify the circumstances surrounding Zbigniew Ziobro’s cooperation with Telewizja Republika following the change of government in Hungary, as well as a possible connection to Article 239 of the Penal Code concerning aiding an offender.
The document also quotes a fragment of an interview in which the host asked whether Sakiewicz’s summons could eventually turn into formal charges. Korneluk replied: “I cannot rule that out; this will be assessed by the prosecutors handling the case.”
Sakiewicz also referred to publications by the portals fakt.pl and gazetaprawna.pl regarding the issue of media cooperation with Zbigniew Ziobro. The cited materials discussed whether the activities of the editorial team were purely journalistic in nature or whether they could have been linked to concealing a wanted person.
In the final part of the filing, Tomasz Sakiewicz requested an unequivocal confirmation as to whether he is still being summoned solely in the capacity of a witness.
“This has fundamental significance for safeguarding my rights guaranteed under the relevant legal provisions,” he wrote.