“If the members of this committee, even before the hearing, had already predetermined the outcome and defined their attitude toward both the existing and future findings – can that be considered proof of impartiality, objectivity, and a genuine desire to clarify all circumstances?” – asked former Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro on TV Republika. The politician commented on the proceedings of the illegal Pegasus committee.
On Monday, former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro was brought before the illegal parliamentary committee investigating the Pegasus surveillance system. During his free statement, the politician publicly explained what findings the services had been able to make through the use of this software. He referred, among others, to the cases of Sławomir Nowak and Roman Giertych.
Ziobro discussed the course of the hearing in the program Polityczna Kawa (“Political Coffee”) on Telewizja Republika.
“Law enforcement bodies in a state governed by the rule of law operate on the basis of and within the limits defined by statutes. The Law on the Constitutional Tribunal explicitly states that the Tribunal may, in any case, issue a decision to suspend the execution of a legal act if it is necessary to examine the constitutionality of the provisions under review,” Ziobro pointed out.
The former minister emphasized that “if we were dealing with a legitimate investigative committee, the essence of such a body would be an objective and impartial pursuit of the truth.”
“If the members of this committee, even before the hearing, had already predetermined the outcome and defined their stance toward both existing and future findings – can that be considered evidence of impartiality, objectivity, and a willingness to clarify all circumstances? That hardly requires any comment,” he asked rhetorically.
Ziobro unequivocally criticized the opening of the illegal committee’s session and the subsequent statements of politicians:
“It was political propaganda. Moreover, it had nothing to do with the Pegasus system; it wasn’t limited to that topic. They generally talked about the ‘crimes of eight years of the United Right’s rule.’ They divided roles among themselves and voiced criticism in the spirit that ‘the party and power must always be right.’”
He assessed that “one can easily see a common denominator with the bygone era.”
“By instrumentally using an institution that, by design, is supposed to objectively establish the facts, they are brutally exploiting it – while breaking the law. It’s a mouthpiece of the authorities through which propaganda flows. Did it work for them? Everyone can judge for themselves. I tried to use the opportunity to focus all the media’s attention on that first moment of the hearing,”* the politician concluded.