Polish President Karol Nawrocki cut short a diplomatic trip and physically confronted judges at the Constitutional Tribunal after the government-backed suspension of the court’s leadership, prompting police intervention, arrests and accusations of an unconstitutional seizure of judicial authority.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Poland’s political crisis intensified overnight Friday, Oct. 30, into Saturday as President Karol Nawrocki physically confronted judges attempting to assume control of the country’s Constitutional Tribunal, following the suspension of the court’s president and deputy president in a move denounced by conservative opposition leaders as a “coup d’état.”
The confrontation unfolded at the Constitutional Tribunal’s headquarters in Warsaw, where police surrounded the building, protesters gathered and opposition politicians accused Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government of attempting to seize control of a constitutional institution without the president’s approval.
<span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"> </span><span data-mce-type="bookmark" style="display: inline-block; width: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 0;" class="mce_SELRES_start"> </span><br>
Nawrocki, who had been traveling to Senegal for a diplomatic visit, ordered his aircraft to return to Poland after learning of the developments. He subsequently arrived at the tribunal, where a physical confrontation occurred as he attempted to enter the building.
The dispute began Friday afternoon when Anna Korwin-Piotrowska, a judge whose appointment is contested by the tribunal’s existing leadership, announced the suspension of Constitutional Tribunal President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice President Bartłomiej Sochański.
Korwin-Piotrowska subsequently declared that she would assume responsibility for the court’s operations, citing provisions allowing the temporary suspension of judges under certain circumstances.
According to Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita’s account of the confrontation, Święczkowski and Nawrocki reject Korwin-Piotrowska’s authority because she was sworn in by the speaker of parliament rather than the president.
Under Poland’s constitutional procedures, judges are elected to the Constitutional Tribunal by the Sejm, the lower house of parliament, and traditionally take their oath before the president.
Nawrocki has refused to administer the oath to several judges selected by Tusk’s governing coalition, arguing that their appointments do not comply with constitutional requirements.
The governing coalition maintains that the president is improperly obstructing parliament’s authority to fill vacancies on the tribunal.
Korwin-Piotrowska’s attempt to assume control followed months of disagreement over those appointments and the legitimacy of the court’s existing leadership.
Poland’s prosecutor general, Waldemar Żurek, also submitted five requests to lift judicial immunity from Święczkowski and Sochański. Four concerned Święczkowski, while the fifth concerned his deputy.
Żurek reportedly provided approximately 50 volumes of investigative records supporting the requests.
Korwin-Piotrowska cited Article 130 of Poland’s Law on the Organization of Common Courts as justification for temporarily suspending the two officials. The provision allows certain judicial authorities to remove a judge from duties for up to one month under specified circumstances pending disciplinary consideration.
Whether that provision can lawfully be applied in the manner asserted remains disputed.
The suspension announcement prompted opposition politicians, including Law and Justice leader Jarosław Kaczyński and former Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, to gather outside the tribunal.
Police were deployed around the building as demonstrators challenged the attempted leadership changes. Video circulating from the scene showed the confrontation developing around the court’s headquarters.
Police said they had received requests to protect court personnel and maintain public order because of demonstrations and concerns about possible disturbances.
Authorities maintained that officers were operating outside the building and denied claims that they had forcibly entered the tribunal itself.
Three protesters were arrested after allegedly breaching security barriers or entering restricted areas around the court.
The confrontation intensified after Nawrocki returned to Warsaw and attempted to enter the tribunal during the early hours of Saturday.
Government officials accused the president of using physical force against judges who were standing near the entrance.
Maciej Berek, a government minister and newly selected Constitutional Tribunal judge, described the incident in a statement concerning Nawrocki’s conduct.
“To use the most delicate of terms – the President forcefully bumped into Judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska and began pushing his way through a group of other Judges,” Berek said.
Video footage showed Nawrocki attempting to pass through a group of people near the entrance as individuals appeared to obstruct his access.
Presidential officials disputed the government’s characterization, alleging that the judges had physically impeded the president and violated his constitutional authority.
Marcin Przydacz, a senior official in the president’s office, accused Korwin-Piotrowska and another judge of breaching the president’s legal protections and using force against him.
The competing accounts have not resulted in an independent legal determination establishing which participants were responsible for unlawful conduct.
After entering the tribunal, Nawrocki confronted Korwin-Piotrowska and other government-backed judicial appointees.
In footage reportedly recorded inside the building, the president told Korwin-Piotrowska, Krystian Markiewicz and Berek that they were “not judges.”
Zbigniew Bogucki, head of the Chancellery of the President, also accused Korwin-Piotrowska of carrying out a “coup d’état.”
The recorded exchanges circulated online as the standoff continued.
The dispute extended to the tribunal’s public communications.
Although the court’s website displayed an announcement recognizing the suspension of Święczkowski and Sochański, the tribunal’s official X account rejected the purported leadership change.
“Ms. Anna Korwin-Piotrowska is not a judge of the Constitutional Tribunal. All persons participating in these actions are committing the crime of a coup d’état,” the tribunal’s account declared.
The competing communications illustrated the institutional division over who possessed the authority to direct the court’s operations.
Following the overnight confrontation, Nawrocki issued a statement through the presidency’s official account demanding that security forces leave the tribunal and accusing Tusk’s administration of violating Poland’s constitutional order.
The president characterized the developments as “violating the constitutional order of the Republic of Poland and forcibly taking over a constitutional body of state.”
“Due to the threat to the internal security of the Republic of Poland, I am calling urgent consultations today with representatives of parliamentary forces in order to stabilize the political situation and restore constitutional order. I thank everyone who is under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Tribunal,” Nawrocki said.
He also suggested that Zbigniew Kapiński, the first president of Poland’s Supreme Court, did not recognize the legitimacy of the government-backed judges’ actions.
Nawrocki called an emergency meeting with representatives of parliamentary political groups for Saturday in an effort to address the confrontation.
Tusk defended the judicial changes, arguing that his government was attempting to restore constitutional standards following the previous Law and Justice administration’s judicial reforms.
“After years of lawlessness under PiS this is a difficult process, sometimes painful and it requires decisive action. There is no other way,” the prime minister said.
Tusk’s government has maintained that the existing Constitutional Tribunal was improperly constituted through judicial appointments made while Law and Justice governed Poland between 2015 and 2023.
The previous PiS government’s changes to the judicial system drew criticism from European Union institutions, which argued that some appointment procedures and disciplinary mechanisms compromised judicial independence.
Tusk’s coalition, which assumed power in December 2023, pledged to reverse those changes and restore compliance with European judicial standards.
However, its efforts have encountered opposition from conservative presidents and judges who contend that the government is attempting to replace judicial officials through procedures inconsistent with the Polish Constitution.
The constitutional dispute has persisted under both former President Andrzej Duda and his successor, Nawrocki, who took office in 2025.
The European Parliament previously took a position against the tribunal’s composition. In an October 2021 resolution, lawmakers described the institution as “illegitimate” and “unfit to interpret constitution.”
The European Union’s position has remained a significant factor in Poland’s disputes over judicial independence, although European institutions do not possess unrestricted authority to appoint judges to Poland’s constitutional court.
Friday’s confrontation also drew international concern.
U.S. Ambassador to Poland Thomas Rose warned that the situation presented risks to political stability and called for restraint from all participants.
In a statement posted on X, Rose described the developments as unprecedented and emphasized that the United States would not take sides in Poland’s internal constitutional dispute.
“The events unfolding tonight at Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal are very serious indeed. We appear to be witnessing an unprecedented confrontation over the government’s use of state power and the independence and authority of a constitutional institution.
“Both sides offer sharply different accounts of what happened and why. Whatever the facts ultimately establish, thousands gathering outside the Tribunal make an already dangerous situation more combustible. The last thing Poland needs is a confrontation that spirals into something far worse.”
Rose stressed the importance of preserving Poland’s political stability and maintaining the country’s relationship with the United States.
“America is on Poland’s side. It is not our place to judge or interfere in its internal affairs. Our concern is for the stability, security, and democratic future of a country we are proud to call our friend and ally,” Ambassador Rose added.
“I hope everyone involved—government officials, law enforcement, and demonstrators alike- will take a deep breath, and don’t take any action that could provoke violence or further escalation.”
The confrontation also prompted reactions from other Polish political leaders, including nationalist politician Grzegorz Braun, who compared the government’s actions to the 1926 coup led by Józef Piłsudski.
Opposition politicians argued that allowing judges not sworn in by the president to assume authority over the tribunal would undermine constitutional procedures governing the judiciary.
Government officials maintained that the tribunal’s existing leadership had obstructed properly selected judges and prevented the court from functioning.
Korwin-Piotrowska announced plans to convene the tribunal’s General Assembly of Judges on Nov. 3, including to address its proposed 2027 budget.
She argued that the refusal to recognize newly elected judges had left the institution unable to perform essential responsibilities.
The controversy carries political consequences ahead of Poland’s parliamentary elections scheduled for 2027, when Tusk’s governing coalition will face voters after a term marked by disputes over judicial reform and presidential authority.
The Constitutional Tribunal has the power to review the constitutionality of legislation, making control of its membership and leadership significant for the government’s ability to advance its legislative agenda.
By Saturday, the rival sides continued to dispute the legality of the suspension orders, the authority of the newly appointed judges and the role of police at the tribunal.
The president’s emergency consultations were called as the confrontation remained unresolved, with no final judicial determination establishing whether the attempted leadership change was constitutionally valid.
Original article
Comments