"I think they do not breach the Constitution". President about his judiciary bills

Bogdan Rymanowski: "Kawa na ławę" Bogdan Rymanowski, welcome and good day to you. Today we’re live from the Belweder with the president Andrzej Duda. Good morning, Mr President.

President: Good morning, Bogdan, good morning to our viewers.

Mr President, let's start with a heavy topic. Does Antoni Macierewicz give you sleepless nights?

No, and I hope the feeling is reciprocated.

How do the relations between you and Minister Macierewicz look like? Is it a rough friendship, or is the word friendship wrong here?

First of all, the most important elements of course must be implemented, because it is a question of, among other things, the security of the state. So in terms of the issues that are - I repeat - the most important, when it comes to issues such as the promotion of young officers, then obviously this cooperation is full and there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, there are some issues that I identify as very sad for me, among other things I am very sorry for the case of General Jaroslaw Kraszewski. I have to say that I do not understand this case, and it hurts me a lot.

On Friday evening, a message from the Ministry of National Defense on the withdrawal of the application for promotion of the generals was issued. Do you treat it as a gesture of goodwill from Antoni Macierewicz?

I will honestly say that I do not really know how to approach this. This information, which came to me through the media, surprised me very much because I never questioned the generals who had been nominated by Minister Macierewicz, these 14 officers, some of them generals, as the promotion would be to a higher rank, some of them colonels. They are very good soldiers. The fact how I perceive them and their service is quite strongly documented by what I did on the Independence Day, I presented them all with the high honors of the state, as thanks to them for their merits to the Polish army, to the outstanding service in the Polish Army. these soldiers. On the other hand, the generals' promotion is a thing for the future. This is not a reward, it is a new task I would say, because it means that these people will have some additional responsibilities in the future. And it is necessary to include it in the development plans of the Polish army, it is necessary to include these elements that we are currently working on, and the Ministry of National Defense and the National Security Bureau, and I also analyse them as the president. I wanted all this to be done in turn. Indeed, since June I have been unable to use the help of General Jaroslaw Kraszewski, who is, be that as it may, the director of the department of supervision over the armed forcesin the National Security Office, so the most important department from the point of view of supervision over the armed forces, in the president sphere of responsibility. It is a great obstacle to me, and I am very worried about this.

Mr President, so you do not treat that Macierewicz’s gesture as a conciliation measure, as an extended hand, as a signal to discuss these nominations together?

What is more, I had never expected such things from the minister, on the contrary. I myself instructed Minister Pawel Soloch, head of the National Security Office, in October, to submit to Minister Macierewicz such a suggestion that he would add to those applications for the generals’ nomination he had made, also General Leszek Surawski, the chief of staff, as I thought he should get a fourth star.

And he didn’t?

There was no answer from Minister Macierewicz in that matter.

Is it a kind of votum separatum from the minister to the most important general?

Let me say it again, there was no answer from Minister Macierewicz. I was worried by that because I thought that with these generals’ nominations also General Surawski should receive the fourth star. It would make it easier for him to work in Brussels, in the NATO headquarters, to interact with colleagues from other countries who are chiefs of staff, to interact with our partners from the United States, with senior officers. A four-star general is the real deal.

So you do not feel much goodwill, good intentions from the head of the Ministry of National Defence?

I repeat – I do not understand this situation.

And the matter of General Kraszewski, from which you began, Mr President. The media recently reported that the Military Counterintelligence Service was checking the general, whether he was in contact with the Ukrainian military who were to hand him a bottle of vodka, and whether reputedly hewas in contact with Russian “night wolves”. Do you trust the general a hundred percent? Do you think he is clean?

First of all, I decided to use the help of the general in the National Security Office because I knew him as a man who worked with President Lech Kaczyński in the years 2007-2009 precisely at the National Security Office. He was an officer there, so he cooperated with Minister Władysław Stasiak directly, who was my friend. Later he also collaborated with the successor of Władysław Stasiak and with Minister Aleksander Szczyglo and there were never any objections to the General. Moreover, when the General decided to join the National Security Office, it was November 2015 and when he decided to assume this role, there were no objections to it. Absolutely none whatsoever. I had no knowledge of any objections. Minister Macierewicz, when he became the minister just then, did not raise any objections, no objections were also raised by the intelligence services.

Until June this year?

I talked about that with Minister Macierewicz even before June, I will tell you straight. I was pretty surprised by that, I perceived it with much scepticism.

So he talked to you, sir, even before commencing the procedure?

Yes, he did talk to me before commencing the procedure.

What did he say?

I just can’t disclose everything he said, because I think these are things under the confidentiality clause.

Pardon me, Mr President, would that be something along the lines of „Mr President, keep an eye on that general?"

Bodgan, let me say it again. I can’t repeat what he said. In any case, he drew my attention to this matter and I asked for help in this matter. I personally did not see these files, but I am not an expert on these matters either. I have never specialized in work or in any supervision of secret services. As a result, I asked a man who knew him to help me. In fact, I did it in agreement with the Prime Minister. He analyzed the material and stated that he did not see anything there that would allow for such far-reaching conclusions. This was the moment when the MCI was actually taking steps against General Kraszewski. On the other hand, it is no secret that General Kraszewski criticised some of the actions of the Minister, and he did not hide this critical attitude.

So this would be some sort of payback from Mr Macierewicza?

I really don’t know. Please remember that this is my important co-worker, but I repeat again, my counselor, I listen to counselors, I listen to them, and then I make my decisions. It's not like I have to do what my co-workers or advisors suggest. I do what I decide as the President of the Republic.

Mr Piotr Bączek, the head of the Military Counterintelligence Service announced a few days ago that the proceedings may end around mid-December. Would you, if it did happen, consider the matter closed?

I have already said several times that I would likethis procedure to be closed. I absolutely do not interfere and do not affect the outcome of this procedure. I would just like it to be closed so that I know what I stand for as the president, the commander of the armed forces, so that we know what is the situation of my associate, the general, and then the general would also have the legal means that would appertain to him at that moment. If, for example, the access to secret materials is revoked from him, that would be the decision, then there would be legal means he would be entitled to use. Today he has no legal means. Today we have a situation where his access is suspended, so I am very limited in using his help. This undoubtedly weakens my ability to act as a commander of the armed forces.

Is it a weakening, or preventing?

Undoubtedly weakening. We do make some changes. The general, who is a very experienced soldier, an extremely intelligent and insightful man who worked and took part in missions abroad and worked in NATO structures and was a line commander, so he is a specific soldier who went through all elements of officer service and worked in The National Security Office, and therefore has a comprehensive look at the army, and he can not be my associate, in the sense that he doesn’t have a full access to information.

Minister Macierewicz said publically on numerous occasions, like two or three days ago, that he had nothing to do with the general’s case, that he did no even participate in these tensions between the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of National Defence. Then what’s the matter?

No comment here. For me, the one thing is particularly sad, very sad. I mean, we remember that we reacted very nervously, with President Lech Kaczyński, and we reacted with a deep shock in 2008 when Minister Witold Waszczykowski was de facto deprived of access to classified information by the Civic Platform and then Minister Antoni Macierewicz has also been denied access to classified information by the Civic Platform. It was autumn 2008. What for? In fact, it was to prevent them from performing their duties, above all, controllling duties.

Politicians from the Civic Platform said there were grounds for that.

[Laughing] Our assessment then was pretty straightforward. I’m very hurt that the same means are used today towards my associates.

We have a case of General Kraszewski, we have a case of generals' nominations, we have probably the most important issue, i.e. the lack of agreement on the military command system. The question is: how should this conflict between you and Minister Macierewicz end? Should this be the resignation of General Kraszewski? Possibly the resignation of Minister Macierewicz?

First of all, I look forward to ending the matter of General Kraszewski. I repeat, I do not interfere in it in any way. Be that as it may. It is important for me to end the matter. So I know what the situation is, so that the general knows what the situation is. I will then know what to do next.

But you know that it can not last forever, because it is very bad for the army. The victims of this situation are generals who have no promotion.

Bogdan, let me stop you here, I did not start this. It was started around me.

Somebody needs to cut it through? Who can do that?

I hope this will be cut through soon. MCI is subject to Minister Antoni Macierewicz. His very close associate Mr. Bączek is the head of MCI so there is probably no doubt as to who can cut it throught. On the other hand, as far as my functioning is concerned, I would like to work very well with the Minister of National Defense. I care very much about this, but I am the President of the Republic, because the Poles decided so, and one of the absolutely constitutional elements that I am implementing within this office is the command over the Polish army.

Why do not you invite Minister Macierewicz to your place and not say in plain-spoken words what you are talking about right now in this program and not ask him to react swiftly? Don’t you see a chance that such a conversation would be constructive?

I applied to Minister Macierewicz both in the form of direct meetings and in writing. Alas.

You seem a bit helpless, powerless.

I only have the powers vested in me by the constitution and this is how I work. Under its provisions.

Let’s imagine a situation there is a change of the government, of the Prime Minister. You receive a motion to include Minister Macierewicz into the new government. Would you sign it?

No situation like this so far. I do believe that the contentious matters between us will end, and there will be normal cooperation from Minister Macierewicz possible. If such a motion was submitted, I would consider it then. Please remember this is the Prime Minister’s prerogative. Both the resignation motion is the Prime Minister’s decision, and the motion to appoint a minister is.

Yes, but swearing in is in front of the President. The President appoints ministers. You can stop the procedure, you can say „no, thank you”

Many things may happen. I will operate within the confines of the constitution, these are very important matters to me.

Please tell us whether you still think that the methods used by Antoni are worthy of communist secret services? Because Professors: Nowak, Cywiński, also Wildstein said that such words should not have been uttered by you, that they were unjust, as the communist secret police officers used to torture members of the opposition and patriots, and nothing like this happens now. Would you recant these words? Apologize for them?

First of all let's start with the fact that it was not my public statement, but it was my private statement. In private speech there is always an element of licentia poetica. We talked to each other when we were evaluating how it worked towards, among other things, Minister Macierewicz, the Civic Platform and the then MCI Headquarters from Donald Tusk’s appointment and Minister for Defense, Minister of National Defense from his appointment. I repeat once more, what struck me the most was that the same methods that the Civic Platform and its subordinate services applied to Minister Macierewicz and to Minister Waszczykowski are now applied to my people. This is something that I will absolutely not agree to. I think it is indecent. I thought so then and today I think so too.

So the question remains how long this war will go on?

I defended Minister Macierewicz then. We fought very hard then, our position was unequivocal. I can hardly change my perspective now.

Mr President, more or less here you talked recently with Chairman Jarosław Kaczyński. In this room, in the neighboring one, on these very chairs? Do you plan another meeting?

This is always an open question, in every case, if such meeting is needed. Please remember that Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski is leading the parliamentary majority now. Law and Justice and the United Right has been a giant success, unmatched in the last 28 years since 1989, in terms of parliamentary elections. He has an independent majority today in the Polish parliament. The one who is leading the majority, that is Mr Jaroslaw Kaczynski, is the person who is the absolute decision maker. As president I think it is absolutely natural that two politicians: the president and the head of the parliamentary majority are talking to each other.

Would it be natural if the leader of the largest united coalition in power were to become the prime minister?

In my opinion it would be natural. This takes place in many or most countries. On the other hand, please remember that these are the decisions of this camp, which has a parliamentary majority, and it is from there that they identify who they perceive as the prime minister, as the leader of the government.

Do I understand correctly that you would have nothing against Jarosław Kaczyński replacing Beata Szydło?

It is written in the Constitution, it is the article perhaps 154 that the prime minister is appointed by the President of the Republic. He entrusts this mission of government formation, but he entrusts this mission of creating a government to a person who is nominated by a parliamentary majority. In this connection, the parliamentary majority nominates and this is the usual constitutional mode of government creation in practice. After all, I will not entrust the mission of creating a government to someone who is not accepted by the parliamentary majority. This is absurd.

Have you talked at that recent meeting about how the future government might look?

We did not talk about how the future government might look. We have been discussing, if anything, about these current issues, how various ministers are assessed.

How do you assess the government, sir? Do you have any reservations towards some ministers?

Bogdan, I have been working with this government for 2 years. Even more than 2 years, counting days, as we just had the second anniversary of this government.

You surely have an opinion about individual ministers?

Of course, I have my opinion and this cooperation has had its better and worse days, because we have agreed on many issues, on other issues we had doubts, but in most cases there was some dialogue and I am glad that in the vast majority of cases we have managed to reach an agreement. I am pleased after these two years of working with the government, and this is what I want to be very clear about and to say very firmly.

Apart from, naturally, Minister Macierewicz?

There is a problem here, but again I want to emphasize, there are specific elements in which there is a problem and there are differences of opinion. On the other hand, I perfectly well understand what it means to care about the security of the Republic, and I try to do my best here, as precisely the commander of the armed forces.

Mr. President, publicly, a few weeks ago, there was a proposal from Chairman Kaczyński that perhaps it was you who should go to European summits, that you should be a representative of Poland at the European Council, as did President Lech Kaczyński. How do you feel about this offer?

First of all, you stroke a chord here which is, in a very general sense, a very close one to myself, when we go back to 2008, and we recall the unfortunate situation when Minister Arabski, acting under orders from Prime Minister Tusk, rejected President Lech Kaczyński’s request for a plane to fly Brussels, which was a shocking situation, when the President of the Republic of Poland was denied the possibility of using a government plane so that he could not represent Poland. It never happened before. It was then at the European Council that Prime Minister Donald Tusk recognized that there was a dispute about competences, and submitted the appropriate motion to the Constitutional Court and that the case before the Tribunal was going on, where I had the honor of representing the President of the Republic with the then head of the Chancellery.

The verdict, as far as I remember, was that the president and the government co-operate.

Yes, indeed. The verdict was about co-operation. The verdict also said that, of course, first and foremost, the government is responsible for current foreign policy, but there is a principle of co-operation that is works both ways. So both the president should co-operate in foreign policy matters with the prime minister and the competent minister, in this case primarily the Foreign Minister. But this principle of cooperation, this principle of cooperation works both ways, so also the prime minister and the minister should cooperate with the president. This involved, among other things, the circulation of documents, the provision of information. What does it boil down to? This boils down to the fact that it is a question of some agreement between the prime minister and the president, who in a given case would represent Poland in the European Council. There must be an agreement in this matter.

Talking about technical issues – if the prime minister calls you and asks you, sir, to represent Poland, would you agree?

I would discuss it with the Prime Minister. I am always open to such conversations, among other things I think that this is a good cooperation. If possible, I can say to the Prime Minister "I only ask to support me here in international affairs because we have this situation." For example, I think it is justified and I assume that the other side thinks so too. I will always try to cooperate as best as possible, first of all it is the most important thing for me is that the interests of Poland, the interests of the Poles are best represented.

So the question remains whether the prime minister will call ?

Future will tell.

A question to you, how do you evaluate Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, sir? Is she at performing her duties and should she perform them until the end of her term of office?

First of all, I was very happy when the Prime Minister took her office. That was the electoral commitment, she was the head of my electoral campaign when I was running for the presidency of the Republic. We succeeded, later we also succeeded in the parliamentary elections, and Beata Szydlo became the Prime Minister and has been the Prime Minister for over two years. And it's a great success. We had two women prime ministers in Poland after 1989. We had Prime Minister Hanna Suchocka first, who was prime minister for 15 months and then, not long ago, we had Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, who was prime minister - as far as I remember – for 14 months, slightly shorter than Mrs. Hanna Suchocka. And Prime Minister Beata Szydlo has been the Prime Minister for over 24 months. So the fact that she has been the Prime Minister for more than 24 months, that she holds high ratings both for the government and for herself - as the polls point out – the polls are still high, it undoubtedly shows that this is her success, her personal success, also the success of her associates, the whole team that is working today.

So do you think, Mr. President, that if there was a change of the prime minister, if Mrs. Beata Szydlo ceased to be the head of government, then would it be very risky for Law and Justice in terms of opinion polls?

I do not say that at all. In such cases, the decision is always - I repeat once again - the Law and Justice’s, the United Right’s. They have a majority in the Polish parliament. But what I want to say. This government has completed a number of promises made during the electoral campaign and has very successfully implemented them. It has completed the 500 plus program, introduced a minimum hourly rate, raised significantly the minimum wage, more than the Social Dialogue Board wanted. It was quite unique that the minumum wage were raised more than the unions expected. The government has reduced the retirement age, which was also an electoral campaign promise. Of course there is a number of issues which remain to be resolved. Sure, you can say that in some cases there is a delay, that maybe we could have acted faster on some issues.

In what cases? For example, Mr President?

For example my concerns about tax-exempt amount are unresolved. The case of people with CHF-denominated loans is unresolved. I submitted two bills in that case, still not passed.

Is this the government’s fault, the Prime Minister’s, that they got stuck in the parliament? Perhaps you were not determined enough there?

No, I was pretty determined, please believe me, it was very important to me. Of course, - I agree – there is a question of stability of the Polish financial system and there is a question of stability of the state budget and so on. I understand all that. But as I said, there are issues that have not been solved yet, and we need to be aware of it. This government has been in stable power for 24 months with just one Prime Minister, a clear success.

Mr. President, I recall the words of Chairman Kaczyński from a press conference, probably even a joint one with Prime Minister Szydlo, when he said that after the July veto of the president circumstances changed and maybe something would have to change as well. They all read that, quite unambiguously, that probably Chairman Kaczyński was preparing to become the Prime Minister. Do you think that this show, during the last couple of weeks, called the government reconstruction is conducive to efficient governance, is conducive to its efficient operation? When we look at some ministries, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there are voices there that they are actually waiting for a new minister.

Minister Waszczykowski had even one strong statement in the media. This is a state which is very disturbing, because people have constantly been talking, not just now, but he has constantly been attacked for a long time, that he is going to be dismissed. He works, but it does not help him at work. Even though he just recently said, quite nervously, I think, that he would like to have any decision at last.

In your opinion it should be stopped? A decision should be made?

These words by Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski, which you just quoted. I think they really could be related to the July situation, but I would have looked at them differently. Namely, the problem that happened there, it did not appear out of nowhere. It resulted simply from the fact that I was not presented these bills earlier as the president of the Republic. I had no opportunity to evaluate them, I had no opportunity to say anything about them. These projects were not presented to me, I saw them, I learned about their content when they were found in the Polish Sejm. I would like to remind you that they have been adopted just in a week in connection with the above, there wasn't much time to ponder on them. And it was a very bad situation. I also regret it very much today. On the other hand, someone here fumbled the matter. Why did the President not have a chance to voice his opinion, on such important issues that also concern the Presidential Office?

Who fumbled? Minister Ziobro? Chairman Kaczyński? Prime Minister Szydło?

Please remember that it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the government. Accordingly, there was no doubt a problem on the line between the president and the government. And the line between president - the government is first of all the line the president - the prime minister. I think that if Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski spoke in this context about the issue of July 24, he also said that at least the due diligence was not observed in relation to the President.

All good, but we are in a different reality now. A few months after your vetoes, the political reality changed. These bills of yours concerning the Supreme Court and the National Council of the Judiciary are being proceeded in the Sejm. We had another demonstration in front of the Presidential Palace, several thousand people shouting to you "You swore an oath, You swore an oath!" What they meant was, of course, your oath on the constitution. Today they feel bad that you swore the oath on the constitution, and still you don't protect this constitution, because they believe that the bills you have proposed violate the constitution.

You know, everyone can believe what they like. I do not think they violate the constitution. I think they are very good solutions. What's more, please see my statements from July and later, and especially those from July, when I made a statement that I would veto them, that I would not sign these laws. What did I say then? What conditions must be met? I said then what I didn't like about these laws, why I could not accept them as the president of the Republic. I said that therefore I would prepare my own bills, removing these shortcomings that prevented me from signing the original bills, within two months. I did it. On September 26, two of my bills on the National Council of the Judiciary and on the Supreme Court were submitted to the Parliament. They reflect accurately my commitments. As a result, there is no removal of all the judges of the Supreme Court, which was a defect of the previous draft. There is no influence, previously unheard of, of the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General on the Supreme Court. It is not the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice who will decide whether a Supreme Court justice can continue to sit there or not, he will not decide what the Supreme Court's rules will be. These are very important issues. Today, it is the President who decides about the judges nominations, the president has the final say today on who will be the judge and who does not, also regarding the justices of the Supreme Court.

An eminent Polish lawyer, Professor Adam Strzembosz said that your Supreme Court bill is better than the previous one, but, I quote "you did not finish cleaning your hands", because Professor Strzembosz indicates that in these bills the Supreme Court justices' term of office principle is violated, a question of retirement age change.

There is no term of office for the Supreme Court justices. In the Constitutional Court they do, in the Supreme Court they do not, that's for starters. I really do not think that the age of 65 years is a very bad retirement age for justices. The fact that at the age of 65 there will also be the assessment of their ability to judge on the one hand by the judge himself, on the other hand by the President of the Republic. Please remember that my proposal is that, at the age of 65, the judge will be retired in the Supreme Court unless they file a request to the President to allow them to continue to adjudicate cases. So there also will be a certain self-assessment made by the justices themselves - that is one thing, and the other also [assessment] by the president as to [their] ability. It is no secret to anyone that there are judges who are not really competent to adjudicate, and they do, and that this is very often a question of age.

What about the case of the First Justice of the Supreme Court? The Article 183 of the Constitution says that the First Justice is appointed by the President for a six-year term of office. Will you shorten this term of office for First Justice Małgorzata Gersdorf, if the bills becomes the law?

The problem is that it will be clearly stated here that a justice retires at reaching 65 years of age.

But there is such Article 183 in the Constitution. Doesn't introducing other changes violate the Constitution?

First of all it must be an active justice to be the First Justice of the Supreme Court.

Aren't you afraid of the fact that following the same principle, when the current opposition comes to power, they may shorten your term of office as the President?

We all will worry then. They would have to work at the Constitution then. I am pretty far from being 65.

Opposition member, like Aleksander Hall, say that your bills, your arrangement with the Law and Justice bring us closer to a police state, like the National Council of the Judiciary and the way the judges ar elected... the politicians will say who can be a member of the National Council of the Judiciary.

There are similar situations in Europe, Spain comes to mind here. Somehow nobody has ever said that Spain is a police country. I think that the people who are the opposition in Poland today, very often the opposition, which is called the total opposition, who have never said anything good about the present government, nor about myself as the president, they simply have a tendency of expressing themselves thusly. They are wont to assess it like that. I personally evaluate the current National Council of Judiciary also through their recent decision, when for obvious political reasons they refused to grant nominations to 260 young people.

But then they retracted.

But under what pressure, after what argument, after the entire Poland was enraged. 260 innocent young lawyers, graduated, who worked for several years to test themselves, who passed the exams, were axed for a trifle. I don't know why. To spite the Minister of Justrice, Attorney General? It is completely childish. The current composition of the National Council of the Judiciary, first of all judges there, they have completely discredited themselves. They showed they were childlish people who should never be play such role.

But Article 187 of the Constitution says that the term of office of elected members of the Natioanl Council of the Judiciary is 4 years. Now it will be interrupted.

Please bear in mind that there was a Constitutional Court's judgment not so long ago, which unequivocally stated that the term was shaped in a manner contrary to the Constitution, so it slightly changes the situation.

So you're not impressed by the demonstrations, like last Friday in many Polish cities?

I fulfil my obligations. Who listened well to what I said has no doubts that I do exactly what I undertook.

Please tell me if the public finally learns the content of the agreement between you and Law and Justice? We still do not know what the amendments to your bills will be

It is Law and Justice and other parliamentary clubs will submit these amendments to the Sejm. I will look at which amendments will be submitted.

Isn't it the case that we should know how these amendments look like?

They will be submitted and available to anyone.

When? Wouldn't it be too late, Mr President?

Please ask the MPs whether too late, or not too late. I am glad that the debate on this subject continues, because the matter previously was settled just in a week. Now, I would even say that it takes too long, because it was more than two months ago that I submitted my projects.

But I remember you saying that these bills will be broadly consulted. So they are consulted just between you and L&J.

Not true. I have consulted on this issue, and I also talked about this with representatives of the parliamentary clubs. They talked with me before I submitted the projects, before I announced their content, I was still making corrections just because of the position of the parliamentary clubs. I'd like to remind you that there was an afternoon meeting at the Palace, where I asked if there would be acceptance for some of my solutions. I heard there would be none. So I presented other suggestions. I talked with those who would decide on these matters because they would vote. That's life, sir. In the Sejm there is a certain representation, these people who are in the Sejm decide what the form of the laws will be and I, as the President, talk with them, because I would like the reform of the Polish judicial system through the National Council of the Judiciary Register and the Supreme Court to happen, I care very much about this. I have submitted my projects, I would like them to be adopted.

And how do you comment the words of the leader of Civic Platform Grzegorz Schetyna, who said that you became so much the hostage to the agreement with Jaroslaw Kaczynski that in exchange for surrendering in the case of court-related issues, you will get the head of Antoni Macierewicz. Is there such a deal, or not?

Bogdan, some people try to fit things into their own categories. Apparently, Mr. Schetyna is only capable of understanding the concept of a "deal" when discussing the surrounding reality or other arrangements. No such deal exists. I want the reform of the judiciary to be carried out, I want the Supreme Court reform to be carried out, but I also want to make the program elements important to me, like the well-functioning Disciplinary Board, like the extraordinary appeal, the special remedy available to the citizen affected by the justice system, where the verdict is already final, but still would have an appeal against that verdict. And a special chamber for such appeals is to be created within the Supreme Court. I want the Supreme Court to replace the justices, so that young justices come, and that people who were active activists of the Polish United Workers' Party disappeared from the Supreme Court, and who, for example, at the Ministry of Justice in 1982 and 1983 assessed whether the martial law legislation was being well implemented in Poland.

Are there many such?

A number of such people, unfortunately.

Are we talking about a few, several people?

A number of such people, unfortunately. It pains me greatly.

What is the guarantee that these justices are not replaced by the complacent ones, compliant to L&J?

Bogdan, I assume there are no such. A Justice is a justice.

But you must know, sir, that there are different judges. Independent ones and complacent ones. When politicians elect judges, they may feel sort of gratitude.

And when the chairs of the courts elect judges there are no dependancies?

What about trias politica, the separation of powers?

What about the control? The powers should check and control each other. How much control was there up to now?

So the politicians are to control judges?

In a sense a mutual control is needed. This is precisely the true picture of democracy when there is no such thing as one power, absolutely untouchable and with an absolute advantage over other powers because it is untouchable, unverifiable in any way.

The arrangement on the NCJ is apparently this - as reported by the media, that in the worst case scenario 9 out of 15 members will be elected by the current governing party, 6 by the opposition. What if the opposition, according to its declarations, boycotts the voting? Protesting against violating the constitution, what then? The entire 15 elected by L&J?

There is a protective mechanism provided. It can not be that an institution is paralyzed only because some consider themselves a total opposition and protest against everything. And they do not participate in the implementation of democratic procedures. There are expressly provided guarantees for the opposition to be able to nominate candidates, a majority of 3/5 is designed, but there are also protective mechanisms so that there is no paralysis of an important state institution, the National Council of the Judiciary, in order not to cause paralysis of a very important area in our state, namely the judiciary, because it is a matter of being able to appoint new judges.

And if L&J does not keep their word? If this agreement between you and the chairman Kaczyński, between Mr Pawel Mucha and Mr Stanislaw Piotrowicz is not complied with, will you repeat the veto?

I can not imagine a situation in which the parliament adopts the law which contains solutions against which I protested previously. I can not imagine such a situation, because for me it will mean that I will not be able to agree to these laws.

If in the amendments L&J veers even by an inch, will you veto them?

I pointed out a number of reasons that have caused me to veto: increasing the powers of the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice in relation to the Supreme Court, which is unacceptable because the question of who can be a justice in the Supreme Court, the issue of preparing the rules of procedure for the Supreme Court, something for which, as the President, I absolutely I could not agree. It is unacceptable that the Attorney General has control over the Supreme Court. I said I would not agree to that. I did not agree that the judges in the National Council of Judiciary would simply be appointed in the Sejm by a simple majority vote, because I thought it was necessary here to allow the opposition to participate in this process, also for parliamentary scrutiny, for it to work well and to maintain its balance, which I think is necessary in democracy. That's why I thought it should be 3/5. I also protested against all the justices being removed from the Supreme Court. As a result, I introduced a 65-year-old retirement policy, but with the opportunity to apply to President for a possibility of further adjudication. And this is not the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, but only the President who will decide about it, who anyhow decides about the nomination of judges.

The current Supreme Court spokesman says that even if the law is adopted in your version, there will be a takeover of the Supreme Court.

People from this millieu said they were a priviledge caste, so...

Don't you think it is a bit a tail wagging the dog? First the parliament should deal with your vetoes, and only then deal with the bills? To reject the veto, or not?

I am mostly interested in efficiency.

So the sequence does not matter?

I am mostly interested in efficiency. For me efficiency means the law does not come into force, because the President said no, I do not agree to such content of the law - did it happen? It happened. I am interested in the reform of the judiciary, so that we actually have the right to improve it so that there is an extraordinary appeal, some sort of control in the form of a Disciplinary Board. I have submitted my bills; if they are adopted, if this reform is implemented, I will be satisfied with it. For me it means effective politics.

Mr. President, a week ago, about this time, around noon, Donald Tusk raised an alarm and asked a dramatic question. Is this what is happening in Poland and with Poland, is it Law and Justice's strategy or a Kremlin-hatched plan? Do you know the answer to this question?

Let me say that, me, like other politicians who know something about European affairs, and I do know a bit, being a Member of the European Parliament for a year, so I was deeply surprised that the President of the European Council, a person who should be above any political agenda, especially intra-Member States in individual Member States, suddenly speaks out on internal reforms introduced in a Member State. This is not the first time, because I will remind you that in December last year, Donald Tusk came to Wroclaw and held political rallies. Clearly taking a stand in the political dispute in Poland.

But he is a Polish citizen, doesn't he have the right to speak about his homeland?

But he is now the President of the European Council and not a private person. What Prime Minister Donald Tusk says at a birthday party with his colleagues, or at his private meetings with his colleagues from the Civic Platform is entirely his business and I'm not interested. But when he goes out and in his official tweets, because he is publicly giving political messages on Twitter, everyone treats his tweets as official messages. He has been posting political content many times through Twitter, so everyone treats his tweets seriously as his official statements. When he arrived and held a press conference in Wroclaw last year, he did not do this press conference as a former prime minister, no one interprets it so. The President of the European Council Donald Tusk arrived.

In your opinion he exceeded his competence as the President of the Council?

Obviously he did! I have absolutely no doubts about that, and because there were concerns he would do so, that was why Poland does not put him forth as the Polish candidate for the presidency of the European Council and the prime minister did not support him.

Or perhaps Donald Tusk did it for a simple reason - he is simply a Polish patriot, concerned about the state of Polish affairs? Doesn't he have the right to express certain comments?

Then he should have accepted the office, to speak like that. He doesn't really help Poland with that.

Will it somehow affect Poland's relations with the European Union? Or, when you, for example, go to Brussels, affect your relationship with President Tusk?

This certainly influences the assessment of Donald Tusk as President of the European Council. After all, it was noticed not only in Poland, but it was noticed in all countries and many politicians were appalled. And even those who do not talk about it, they know perfectly well that he overstepped his competences and did something simply indecent. His predecessor Herman Van Rompuy never allowed himself to do so, exactly to be able to perform well as the President of the European Council, a man who is impartial in the European Council.

Don't you think, sir, that it may be a signal that Donald Tusk will join the presidential race against you in 2020?

I see this more as a kind of internal strife inside the Civic Platform because remember that some Civic Platform MEPs supported this scandalous revolt against Poland that was taking place in the European Parliament, which caused a stir even among the Civic Platform millieu and some Civic Platform politicians strongly condemned those who by supporting this resolution acted against Poland, voting for this resolution. I took it more as an attempt to defend these people by Donald Tusk, with which I absolutely disagree.

Would you like such a confrontation? Andrzej Duda vs Donald Tusk 2020?

I primarily want to perform my Presidential duties well in that time for which the Poles have entrusted me with, until 2020. And this is the most important thing for me today. I have said this many times and I can repeat it here at this meeting - for me, as a man, the greatest satisfaction of this presidency will be if an average Polish family can say in 2020: "We are better off than in 2015, when you took the President's office ". This will be my greatest satisfaction.

Are you sure you will get approval from Law and Justice in 2019, or maybe at the end of 2019/ early 2020? After the July vetoes we heard very different opinions, very strong criticism against your statements from L&J politicians.

You do not become the President to be nominated for anything, you become the President, at least I think so, to perform you duties the best you can and fulfil your promises to your voters. I endeavour to do just so.

Will you join that presidential race?

First of all I want to fulfil my duties as the President for the time allotted the best I can. This is the most important thing for me.

Do I understand correctly, Mr President, you will run for President again regardless of the L&J support?

I just want to fulfil my duties, entrusted to me for five years by my compatriots.

Mr President, Paweł Kukiz wants you not to sign the changes in the Electoral Code, the changes that do away with single-member in election to municipal councils. How will you react to that? Paweł Kukiz says that first there should be a referendum, whether people want it or not. What is your opinion?

I would not discuss the referendum issue here. On the other hand, you have to look at both the work that is going on this draft bill. I emphasize it very strongly, because work on this draft bill continues all the time, it is not so that it is already a law. This is not yet a law, it is still the bill. These are the statements that have appeared in the Sejm in recent days, because the work on these bills is still ongoing.

Do you know what the head of the State Electoral Commission said? He said that if this bill is adopted, then we would have a problem with simply conducting the election, that it was written by a six-year old.

Bogdan, I heard dozens of statements on different issues that were catastrophycally absolute, and then everything went well. Let me remind you of what Civic Platform politicians augured about the 500+ programme - the collapse of the budget, almost an eradication of the Polish state. And now not only the budget did not crumble, but all of a sudden we have more money in it than forecast, as we stopped the Civic Platform handing over of the Polish taxes to I don't know whom.

So we shouldn't rather expect a veto here?

First of all, the law must be adopted in the Sejm, in the Senate. As it is adopted and sent to the President of the Republic, then the President of the Republic will always make a decision. And I will only make my decision when I have the final text of the bill, when it is sent to me. And today there is a parliamentary debate on this subject.

Right after our interview you are flying to Vietnam. This is another foreign trip, recently you were in Greece. Is there something to gain there, can Polish entrepreneurs count on cooperation with Vietnam? Is that a promising market?

It's an element of what I've just said - that I would like the average Polish family to live better. It is also a question of promoting Polish entrepreneurs, to support their aspirations regarding exports and expansion abroad. I am constantly trying to include this element in my presidential activity.

Any fruits so far from two years of this economic diplomacy?

Please ask the CEO of URSUS, ask the CEO of SELENA in Kazakhstan about these fruits. As far as I can tell, indeed it has. I try my best to pave roads, to bring down the barriers, which is very often possible when I talk to other presidents. I am not afraid to promote Polish business. I think that this is my duty as President, that's why Polish businessmen were with me in Kazakhstan, and Polish businessmen were with me in China, Ethiopia, that's why in Ethiopia I visited factories where URSUS tractors, Polish tractors are assembled and economic cooperation flourished between that company and the largest company operating in Ethiopia.

Will the deputy prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki join you on that trip?

A number of government ministers are joining me there. There is also a delegation of 65 Polish businessmen who will be in Vietnam to participate in the debate, because there will be a Vietnam-Poland, attended by myself in Ho Chi Minh city. We will open a representative office of the Polish investment and trade agency in Ho Chi Minh. I will have political meetings with the President, with the Prime Minister and also many political meetings. Intergovernmental agreements will be concluded there. The issue of the loan Poland gives to Vietnam in order for Vietnam to buy goods in Poland will be finalized. Economic contracts will also be concluded. There are really many things that you can achieve. Vietnam is a developing market, one of the five countries that the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out as one of the most promising in terms of business expansion from Poland.

At the end of our interview let's return to our domestic affairs. Are you happy that a woman, Katarzyna Lubnauer, is a new head of the Modern Party?

There were elections, I would like to congratulate the new chair the victory in these elections and success with her efforts. I believe her efforts will be for the good of Poland.

Do you see any role to play for Ryszard Petru?

Hard to say. I can tell him just this - you sometimes win elections, you sometimes lose them, but you need to keep your head straight, believe in success and work towards that success first of all.

Your wife, First Lady Agata Duda recently met with the head of the Polish Teachers' Union, Mr Sławomir Broniarz. Was it an opening move?

Mr Broniarz asked my wife for a meeting. He wanted it very much, he is the head of a large teaching organization. My wife - as you known - is a teacher. She thought that although she generally keeps away from all political issues, she would do it, and decided to meet with a representative of teachers, so her professional circles.

Do you, Mr President, think it was an exception, or will it be followed by more meeting? Will the presence of the First Lady in the public sphere increase?

That is a question to my wife, she decides herself who to meet, it is her decision as the First Lady.

You do not consult it with one another?

I do not pressure her to do absolutely anything here.

Will you sign the act on ban on Sunday retail?

I think the version is pretty interesting in view of all accompanying controversy. Sure, there are doubts. This law is at this moment of a staged character, who knows, maybe it is a sensible solution that this period of entering this solution in the form of a de facto total ban of trade on Sunday will be extended over time. We will slowly get used to it.

So you will sign?

I realize that perhaps a number of people in Poland can not imagine that shopping malls may be closed on Sundays. On the other hand, I will say this: first, this process will be extended over time, so you will be able to observe how it effects the economy, the situation of entrepreneurs, the situation of consumers. Secondly, please keep in mind that in Germany, in England, in Austria, shops have been closed on Sundays for many years. And no one is protesting against it. It's normal and everyone knows that you do your shopping on a different day. And somehow the economy is not suffering, especially the German one.

Mr President, I would hate for you to miss your plane. You are flying to Vietnam via Dubai, did you. I think you're facing a 17-hour journey. Did you consult a guide?

I did, in a sense that I know how this journey will look like.

It wasn't a guide to cats?

I love cats.

Do you have a cat?

My daughter does, and that cat is staying at our place right now. I love them. My parents have cats, my sister has cats, so cats feature in our family.

Do you talk with the Chairman about cats?

[Laughs] seldom, but sometimes we do.

Perhaps high time? Thank you very much indeed, Mr President, for the interview, thank you for accepting our invitation. Ladies and gentleman, President of the Republic of Poland, Andrzej Duda was a guest of "Kawa na ławę". Thank you!

Thank you and have a nice Sunday!

Thank you and see you

Źródło: tvn24