I have no idea what the Chinese ambassador to Poland has to do with them having a coup. It looks like there’s some sort of fight between a constitutional court and the president. And I think each is dismissed each other or something close to that
The checked claim, posted on X by former deputy foreign minister Paweł Jabłoński, says Poland's police "entered and seized" the Constitutional Tribunal on
Police enter the Constitutional Tribunal’s premises as its president, Bogdan Swieczkowski, is suspended amid a prolonged dispute over judicial appointments.
Protesters attempting to cut the gate open at their Supreme Court to get to the police. That’s a bit opposite of what you normally see.
The police are there from the executive branch and forcing or trying to close the court. (Illegally. And the court seems to be suspending people illegally.)
Poland has been plunged into an unprecedented political and constitutional crisis after heavily armed police units cordoned off the headquarters of the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw on Friday night, escalating an already bitter power struggle between Prime Minister Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki.
Poland has descended into a fresh constitutional crisis after police cordoned off the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw amid a bitter power struggle between PM Donald Tusk and President Karol Nawrocki., Europe, Times Now
I found a little,
The president of the tribunal has refused to recognize new justice appointments made by the parliament.
A dispute and argument broke out at the court today and an associate judge called the police out of concerns for safety.
The root of the issue the parliament and PM have appointed new judges who will shift the balance of the court politically.
The president refused to hear their oaths and the tribunal president has since refused to seat the new judges.
It’s a contested issue in Polands constitutional process. In 2015 the constitutional tribunal ruled the president must take the oaths, the could not refuse
In May of this year the tribunal changed that ruling and basically ruled the president didn’t have to receive the oaths.
It mostly seems that the current majority in the tribunal does not want to seat the new judges because it will shift the court majority.
That and the interpretation over can the parliament pass statutes the regulate the constitution process. And how far exactly they can go. As well as the constitutional authority of the tribunal to rule on the constitutionality of statute and previous ruling.
In short it truly does seem to be a constitutional crisis. It all depends who might capitulate or if a lasting compromise can be found. This issue has been going on for for almost 11 years.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.