The court in Warsaw dismissed the case against Sławomir Nowak without holding a trial. “For me, this is an unacceptable, scandalous, and premature decision,” prosecutor Magdalena Kołodziej told Niezalezna.pl. She led the joint international team (JIT) with prosecutors from Ukraine investigating the activities of the group allegedly headed by Nowak. Did he accept financial benefits? “The evidence shows that he did. That is why an indictment was filed,”emphasized prosecutor Kołodziej.
The scandal over the dismissal of the case against Nowak in the so-called “Polish thread” is not dying down—especially as Niezalezna.pl reveals new, shocking circumstances. Let us recall the key facts:
- The dismissal was announced during a preliminary hearing, which should have been limited to organizational matters for the upcoming trial;
- The ruling was issued without analyzing the evidence in the main hearing;
- The decision came from a 29-year-old court assessor with only one year of judicial experience;
- The prosecutor present not only supported the defense’s motion but also declared that the prosecution would not appeal in the event of dismissal.
There are many more troubling aspects, and it is no surprise that lawyers sharply criticized the situation that unfolded last Friday (September 19) at the Warsaw Mokotów District Court.
What is most important, however, is the opinion of those who know the evidence best and who made decisions during the investigation into Nowak and others accused of corruption. Among them is unquestionably prosecutor Magdalena Kołodziej, former head of the investigative division of the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office and, above all, head of the special team that—together with the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau—investigated Nowak’s activities. Notably, she also led one of Poland’s first joint international teams (JIT) with Ukrainian prosecutors and NABU officers.
Speaking with Niezalezna.pl, prosecutor Kołodziej gave a blunt assessment of the dismissal at what was, in fact, a procedural hearing:
“It is shocking and unacceptable to me. The evidence in this case was strong. To close the case like this, without holding evidentiary proceedings, is scandalous.”
Problems with adjudicating this case arose quickly—almost immediately after the indictment, covering both Ukrainian and Polish aspects, was filed with the Warsaw Regional Court. First came procedural disputes over jurisdiction, and then the case was “fragmented.”
“I did not see and still do not see any substantive justification for splitting this case into different threads. It was neither economical nor efficient,” Kołodziej explained.
The former head of the investigative team admitted that for many months she had no access to the case files. This was also true when the “Polish thread” was sent to the Mokotów court.
“I was no longer supervising this case,” she noted, but she was surprised to learn that it was assigned to an assessor. “In my view, it is a difficult and complex case, not suitable for someone with such limited professional experience. This was not a matter of theft or unpaid alimony.”
Yet the proceedings were dismissed at a preliminary hearing.
“For me this decision is unacceptable, scandalous, and based on factors other than substantive ones. It contradicts the body of evidence that was gathered. It is an escape from holding a proper trial and hearing crucial witnesses,” she assessed.
The justification given was that there were no grounds for filing an indictment.
“Prosecutor Jan Drelewski, who prepared the indictment, was part of our investigative team. He gathered the evidence impeccably and sent it to the court. In my opinion, there was evidence for conviction—not only in the Polish thread but also in the main case,” Kołodziej stated. She repeatedly emphasized that the evidence should have been tested in court.
“If the court had doubts, it could have asked the witnesses questions during the trial to clarify them—whether to the benefit or detriment of the accused,” she explained. “The decision is decidedly premature, and the grounds for dismissal did not exist.”
It is now known that the head of the 1st investigative division of the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office, prosecutor Małgorzata Ceregra-Dmoch, was present at the hearing. According to the transcript, not only did she support the defense’s motion for dismissal, but she also declared that the decision would not be appealed.
Did Nowak accept financial benefits?
“I have never before encountered such a situation, at least not in the Warsaw district. Of course, cases have been dismissed before, but I never heard of a prosecutor supporting such a defense motion and stating there would be no appeal,” Kołodziej said.
Will there be an appeal, or will her declaration stand?
“I hope someone will wake up and there will be an appeal, so the case can be properly heard by the court at trial. Otherwise, we will stop at this stage, and the truth will never come out,” she explained.
Nearly four years have passed since the indictment was filed. Have there been any changes regarding the corruption charges against Nowak? Any new circumstances undermining the accusations?
“Of course, I do not have full knowledge of this, and I don’t know if the defense submitted anything new, since I was not involved in the court stage. But I do not believe anything has changed so dramatically as to justify the prosecution’s decision—and later the court’s,” Kołodziej clarified.
Did Nowak accept financial benefits?
“The evidence shows that he did. That is why an indictment was filed, and not a decision to dismiss the case at the prosecutorial stage. That is my view, and I believe that of every member of the team,” she stressed.
After the change of government and prosecutorial leadership, prosecutor Kołodziej herself faced reprisals for the decisions and investigations she had overseen—especially her leadership of the team that investigated Nowak.
“That is exactly how I see it. Practically a month after being removed from my post, I was reassigned to a district prosecutor’s office, and only last week did I return to the regional prosecutor’s office—after a year and a half. I had to ‘serve a sentence,’ so to speak, because I believe that reassignment was a form of punishment for my earlier decisions,”she summed up. “I don’t know of any disciplinary proceedings, but that may still come,” she added.
“I think this is not the end of reprisals,” she concluded.