Immunity versus justice. What's next on the investigation into Charles Nawrocki?

Karol Nawrocki's triumph in the 2025 presidential election begins a fresh phase in the debate on criminal work of the highest government officials. The Monitoring Centre for Racist and Xenophobic Behaviours (OMZRIK) published a position in which it cites a legal expert on the restrictions on possible criminal proceedings against the future president.

Photo screen shot, youtube

Although the Centre’s claims have not yet been confirmed by independent sources, it is worth looking at them closely — besides from the position of constitutional mechanisms and the state of justice.

How is the President's immunity different?

Unlike parliamentarians, the president of Poland enjoys a peculiar kind of legal protection. He can't be prosecuted or charged., as long as he is in office, but in the case where the National Assembly has put him before the Court of State. However, this is simply a political procedure, requiring a majority of two-thirds of the votes of both chambers of parliament.

According to the analysis referred to in the OMZRIK, the prosecution may carry out preparatory activities to Karol Nawrocki in cases concerning acts committed before taking office. However, he cannot mention the indictment to court until the end of his word of office.

OMZRiK: limitation interruption

One of the key elements of the OMZRiK position is the thesis that The duration of the President's word of office shall not be included in the limitation period for offences previously committed. This means – in the explanation of the Centre – that even if Karol Nawrocki holds office for 10 years, proceedings can be resumed immediately after his resignation.

The organisation did not supply the full content of the study it refers to, and these claims were not explicitly confirmed by the courts or prosecutors. It is worth noting that interruption or suspension of the limitation period is simply a substance of explanation of criminal law and may be the subject of dispute in a possible trial.

Two cases, 1 source

The OMZRiK recalls that it is simply a notifying organization in 2 proceedings which, according to its information, are of interest to the prosecution:

• The alleged extortion of an flat from an older man,
• Dissemination of racist content during the election campaign.

In both cases, it is about actions that were to take place before the elections. Karol Nawrocki He hasn't heard any charges yet.and no of the proceedings ended with a formal indictment.

Can the trial begin before the oath?

Theoretically, yes – about 2 months stay until the president is sworn in. nevertheless – as OMZRiK points out – It's truly impossible.. The specified completion of the investigation, the preparation of the indictment, the conduct of the trial and the examination of an appeal from a possible judgement takes respective years in Poland today.

The Centre's analysis states that reform of the justice strategy over the last fewer years has led to serious failure. According to data provided by the judiciary and the legal community, even simple criminal cases can proceed for 4 years. In this context, the swift settlement of the President-elect's case seems to be a procedural fiction.

Constitutional work – only the Court of State

In theory, the constitution provides for a mechanics for charging the president before the Court of State, but this requires a decision of the National Assembly – that is, the combined chambers of the Sejm and the legislature – made by a qualified majority. specified a script in current political realities seems unlikely.

Immunity is impunity. But work goes away

The case of Karol Nawrocki reveals not only the tension between politics and law, but besides the state's systemic weakness in enforcing the rule of equality before the law. Presidential immunity does not mean a definitive avoidance of criminal liability – but Puts it back in time, possibly a full decade.

For public opinion and social organisations specified as OMZRiK, it is besides long to stay passive. For state institutions – a test of whether there are inactive mechanisms for independent control of power, which operate even erstwhile it concerns the number 1 individual in the country.

DF, thefad.pl / Source: Racist and Xenophobic behaviour Monitoring Centre – facebook.com/omzrik