President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a law reforming the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), sparking fierce political reactions.
Nawrocki’s Veto Justification
President Karol Nawrocki stated he could not sign a law that, under the banner of “restoring the rule of law,” would introduce a new stage of chaos and open the door to political influence over judges. The vetoed law would have changed the rules for electing judges to the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS).
The proposed legislation would have allowed 15 KRS members to be elected directly by judges in secret ballots, rather than by the Sejm. Minister of Justice Waldemar Żurek has announced he has a “Plan B” to proceed.
Political Reactions to the Veto
Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński criticized the veto, stating that Nawrocki “stands by Ziobry and his shameful legacy in the justice system.” Former Justice Minister Adam Bodnar questioned whether Justice Minister Ziobro remains in charge despite the veto.
Government spokesman Adam Szłapka called the veto “a gangster’s move,” while KO MP Arkadiusz Myrcha labeled it “anti-citizen,” arguing it maintains a “backdoor for those fleeing from verdicts.”
Supporters of the Veto
PiS MP Piotr Gliński dismissed criticism from opposition leader Tusk, stating, “It is we, over 10 million people, who won the elections against Tusk, we elected President Nawrocki.” PiS club head Mariusz Błaszczak defended the veto as protecting “legal stability and the constitutional prerogatives of the head of state.”
President’s Alternative Proposal
In place of the vetoed law, President Nawrocki presented his own draft legislation “on restoring the right to a court and on hearing cases without unjustified delay.” He emphasized his proposal aims to “realistically shorten the time of proceedings” based on three principles: court impartiality, unchallengeable judgments, and confirming the status of properly nominated judges.
Nawrocki also announced that if his dialogue proposals are rejected, he will seek a “referendum on restoring normality in the functioning of courts,” stating, “Let the citizens decide. Their voice is always the most important.”
