[ought-six]

“In this case, it declared Duda’s pardons valid, and the lower court ignored that ruling, so it will be reversed in short order. It looks like Tusk just wanted to arrest his political opponents, just like the commies and the Bidet Regime here.”

It appears the Polish president (as head of state) has exclusive power of pardon. In this instance, it was Duda. The prime minister is head of government; in this case (since December 13, 2023), Tusk. The pardon given by Duda was BEFORE and trial and conviction of the defendants; thus, the Polish Supreme Court held that the pardon was premature and thus invalid, and that the case had to go through the proper courts. The defendants were found guilty and convicted late last year, and sought refuge in the presidential palace (Duda).

So, the question remains: Was the pardon — BEFORE any trial and conviction — legal under Polish law? I think Polish law is clear that the head of state (president) has the exclusive power of pardon. However, legal scholars and other courts challenge whether the president has the right to pardon parties BEFORE a final court ruling in their cases is handed down. In other words — unlike in the US, where the president can issue a pardon at any point after a crime is committed and before, during or after criminal proceedings have taken place — the challenge is that a pardon cannot be awarded to someone who has not been convicted; kind of like the reasoning being: What is there to pardon?

So, maybe you’re right; and maybe you’re not. But, I agree with you that over the years there was a concerted effort to co-opt the Polish courts; however, it appears it was Duda and his party that were responsible for doing that.

I guess we’ll see how all this plays out. It sure as hell has created a big stink in Poland (LOTS of bad blood), and in the EU.

Below is an interesting article about this case, its background, and the process involved; take it for what it’s worth:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/analytical-brief/2018/hostile-takeover-how-law-and-justice-captured-polands-courts

[Dr. Franklin]

So, the question remains: Was the pardon — BEFORE any trial and conviction — legal under Polish law? I think Polish law is clear that the head of state (president) has the exclusive power of pardon. However, legal scholars and other courts challenge whether the president has the right to pardon parties BEFORE a final court ruling in their cases is handed down. In other words — unlike in the US, where the president can issue a pardon at any point after a crime is committed and before, during or after criminal proceedings have taken place — the challenge is that a pardon cannot be awarded to someone who has not been convicted; kind of like the reasoning being: What is there to pardon?

The more relevant point is that the accused appear to have immunity from criminal prosecution as members of the legislature. It's not something we do here in the U.S. or most common law jurisdictions, but in Europe it is common to protect legislators from political prosecution. The Speaker of the lower house revoked their credentials to enable their arrest. That is a political stunt as well. So, there are two large legal problems with these prosecutions. The only limitation I can see in the Polish constitution to the President's pardon powers comes in matters of what we would consider impeachment, the ability to hold office. These guys weren't impeached. It's just ugly political machinations.