On Monday, the parliamentary committee investigating the use of the Pegasus surveillance software began its session shortly after 3:30 PM, expecting to question Bogdan Święczkowski, the President of Poland's Constitutional Tribunal and former national prosecutor. Instead, Święczkowski sent a formal notice to Marshal of the Sejm, Szymon Hołownia, declaring he would not attend what he termed the 'unlawful activities' of the Sejm.
Święczkowski cited the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling on September 10, 2024, which deemed the resolution establishing the committee unconstitutional. He emphasized his absence was not just personal but grounded on legal principles enshrined within the Polish Constitution, reinforcing his assertion by stating, "Given the reasons provided, the presence of the President of the Tribunal at the hearing of the so-called Parliamentary Investigative Committee would represent a clear abrogation of the law."
Continuing to justify his stance, he indicated, "I wish to stress I have nothing to hide and can immediately provide testimony if called by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland to investigate properly constituted without violating the law and the Polish Constitution." This assertion serves as both reassurance and defiance, underlining his openness if approached under lawful circumstances.
The Pegasus Committee had plans to interrogate Święczkowski as part of their probe aimed at assessing the legality, correctness, and necessity of operations carried out using the Pegasus software from November 16, 2015, to November 20, 2023. They seek accountability related to the application of such surveillance techniques within various governmental departments and law enforcement agencies.
Soon after Święczkowski's announcement, Tomasz Trela, a member of the committee from the Left party, expressed his disappointment and proposed two motions: one for imposing a fine of 3,000 PLN for failing to appear and another directing the case to the Attorney General Adam Bodnar to initiate legal actions involving questioning Święczkowski himself.
Trela remarked, "This situation is not surprising, as it marks another individual from the ruling Law and Justice Party, who has decided to obstruct the committee's work." The committee unanimously endorsed both motions, with seven votes for and one against the fine, and similarly, seven favored the motion to direct the case to the Attorney General.
This incident adds another layer to the parliament's burgeoning investigation surrounding the Pegasus software, developed by the Israeli NSO Group, which is purportedly intended for countering terrorism and organized crime. Allegations revealed by the Canadian Citizen Lab indicate the software has been used within Poland for surveillance against opposition politicians.
The broader ramifications of this tension between the Constitutional Tribunal and the parliamentary committee echo loudly within the current Polish political spectrum. The Pegasus Committee aims to expose any unjust use of power by governmental bodies, bearing heavy scrutiny on operational procedures potentially infringing upon citizens' rights during the specified timeframe.
Despite the committee's urgent push to establish the legality of Pegasus's operations and who was responsible for its procurement, Święczkowski's refusal to comply with this inquiry underlines the complex interplay between legal authority and accountability. His assertions challenge the committee's legitimacy, stirring debates around the proper checks and balances within Poland's governmental framework.
This conflict presents significant constitutional questions and highlights the delicate nature of the relationship among various arms of the Polish government. Święczkowski's defiance, alongside the committee's firm stance on accountability, teeters on the edge of legal confrontation, propelling Poland's political drama forward as both sides prepare for another round of back-and-forth with the potential for legal repercussions.
With the Pegasus investigative committee designated to continue its hearings, any future testimony, whether from Święczkowski or other implicated officials, will certainly be central to illuminating the actual employment of surveillance tools and their adherence to constitutional mandates.