President Pardons Three Individuals While Rejecting Five Other Clemency Requests
Polish President Karol Nawrocki has exercised his constitutional prerogative of mercy, granting conditional suspension and sentence remissions to three convicted individuals following formal reviews....
Polish President Karol Nawrocki has exercised his constitutional prerogative of mercy, granting conditional suspension and sentence remissions to three convicted individuals following formal reviews.
Table Of Content
Three Individuals Receive Clemency From President
President Karol Nawrocki has exercised his power of pardon regarding three convicted individuals. The Chancellery of the President presented the scope of the decisions and information regarding the concluded proceedings, but did not disclose the data of the pardoned persons. Rafał Leśkiewicz explained that this corresponds to the previous practice of the Presidential Palace.
Karol Nawrocki reviewed eight requests submitted to him by the Prosecutor General. By decisions dated February 2, 2026, he applied the right of pardon to three individuals, while refusing to use his constitutional prerogative in the remaining five cases. He also signed four orders requesting the Prosecutor General to present files of subsequent cases under Article 567 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Review Process and Confidentiality of Pardons
The issuance of the three orders was announced by Mateusz Kotecki, Secretary of State in the Chancellery of the President of the Republic of Poland. He emphasized that before making a decision, the president analyzes the complete documentation regarding the convict, which includes the text of the judgment, case files, the Prosecutor General’s stance, court opinions, a social background interview, and prison administration reports if the convict is serving a sentence.
Presidential spokesperson Rafał Leśkiewicz informed that the Chancellery of the President will not disclose the first and last names of the three pardoned individuals. He noted that non-disclosure remains an established practice, and exceptions are only made if the interested party agrees to publicize their identity, as was done in the subsequent pardon of Weronika Krawczyk.
Pardon Following a Road Disaster
The first decision concerned a person convicted under Article 173 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Criminal Code for unintentionally causing a road disaster that resulted in human death or serious harm to the health of many people. The president conditionally suspended the executed prison sentence for a probationary period.
The pardon proceedings were initiated in standard mode pursuant to Article 561 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the second-instance court issuing a positive opinion and the Prosecutor General submitting a motion for clemency.
Decisions factored in the convict’s very difficult health situation, advanced age, expression of remorse, and apologies to the victims, alongside the incidental nature of the crime and positive social background reports.
Remission of Sentence for Criminal Threats
The second order covered a person convicted of criminal threats under Article 190 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, with Karol Nawrocki remitting the prison sentence entirely. The first-instance court evaluated the clemency request positively, and the Prosecutor General requested the president to grant the motion.
The health condition and advanced age of the convict justified the pardon, alongside the significant time elapsed since the commission of the act and the convict’s law-abiding behavior following the sentence.
Pardon Involving Fraud and Economic Damage
The third decision involved an individual convicted of fraud, causing large-scale damage in economic trade, and harming creditors under Articles 286 paragraph 1, 296 paragraphs 1 and 3, and 301 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.
The president conditionally suspended the prison sentence while placing the convict under the supervision of a probation officer for a designated probationary period, following positive opinions from both courts and a supporting motion from the Prosecutor General.
Decisive factors included a difficult family situation tied to a close relative’s severe illness requiring care for both them and minors, positive social background reports, the lapse of time since the offense, and the lack of appropriate instruments under the Executive Criminal Code.
Constitutional Prerogative of the President
The legal basis for granting a pardon stems from Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, granting the president competence to make such decisions while excluding persons convicted by the Tribunal of State. Under Article 144 paragraph 3 point 18, a pardon act is a presidential prerogative not requiring the Prime Minister’s signature.
Detailed procedures following a final conviction are regulated by Articles 560–568 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing requests from the convict, defense counsel, authorized appellants, spouses, direct relatives, siblings, or cohabitants.
Evaluations may consider post-conviction behavior, served sentence extent, health, family situation, damage reparation, and subsequent events, though the final decision rests solely with the president.
Pardons Do Not Constitute Acquittals
A clemency act can result in sentence remission, mitigation, conditional suspension, or expungement depending on the specific order, but it does not equate to an acquittal or alter court findings regarding guilt.
The president does not re-examine criminal cases like an appellate court, instead deciding on the consequences of conviction based on humanitarian grounds, personal situations, post-conviction conduct, and opinions of participating bodies.