Notes from Exile: Censorship and Constitutional Breakdown Is New Polish Reality

In recent days, Poland has been electrified by continued reports of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s attempts to unlawfully prevent President-elect Karol Nawrocki from taking office. These actions bear all the hallmarks of a constitutional coup. At the same time, on Friday, 25 July, the ruling left-liberal coalition moved to suspend the functioning of the National Broadcasting Council—a constitutionally mandated institution tasked with protecting freedom of speech and media pluralism. This action, too, constitutes a direct assault on the Constitution.

Since December 2023, Poland under Tusk’s so-called “militant democracy” has become a testing ground for globalist lawlessness and a campaign of systemic, unprecedented erosion of the rule of law. One of its explicit targets has also been the National Broadcasting Council, a body standing in the way of imposing liberal censorship in Poland. Given the country’s historical experience of communist dictatorship and censorship, the institution responsible for issuing broadcasting licenses and safeguarding freedom of expression enjoys constitutionally protected independence. 

To eliminate it in practice, in 2024 members of the ruling coalition initiated proceedings before the State Tribunal against the Council’s Chairman, Maciej Świrski. The charges brought against him were absurd—including alleged delays in granting licenses to liberal media outlets and the failure to transfer subscription fees to public broadcasting companies. Yet in December 2023, public media had already been unlawfully and forcibly seized by the government, which prompted Świrski to deposit the funds with the court.

Remarkably, despite intense political pressure and repressive measures by Tusk’s liberal administration — including direct attacks on freedom of expression and media pluralism—the Polish media landscape has undergone a pronounced shift to the right over the past eighteen months. TV Republika, a conservative news channel, is now the most-watched news station in the country and the second-largest television channel overall. Together with the conservative wPolsce24 and the Catholic broadcaster TV Trwam, it commands a majority share of the news-viewing audience. There is no doubt that conservative media, which closely scrutinized the left-liberal government, were one of the key factors enabling Nawrocki’s electoral victory—a victory that signals the beginning of the end for Tusk’s government.

But Tusk is not stepping down—he knows that losing power could mean years in prison. He and his associates not only unlawfully seized public media and the Public Prosecutor’s Office and detained opposition MPs—in a manner reminiscent of Belarusian practices—but have also consistently ignored inconvenient rulings issued by constitutional bodies such as the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and the National Council of the Judiciary.

The aim of Tusk’s camp is to establish an information monopoly. This is why they sought at all costs to indict Świrski, as indictment—under then-valid Polish law—results in automatic suspension from office. In the case of the National Broadcasting Council, this would have paralyzed an institution that had consistently and effectively safeguarded freedom of speech. As Chairman, Świrski fulfilled his constitutional duties by firmly defending independent journalists and conservative broadcasters targeted by the left-liberal government. He granted broadcasting licenses to TV Republika and wPolsce24—licenses that Tusk was determined to revoke.

It is worth noting, too, that a similar move was undertaken in 2024 against the President of the National Bank of Poland. In both the National Bank and the Council cases, the relevant provisions of the State Tribunal Act were challenged before the Constitutional Tribunal, arguing that a simple majority should not be allowed to indict and thereby suspend the functioning of a constitutionally protected and independent institution. The Constitutional Tribunal upheld those arguments. 

In its 2024 ruling concerning the President of the National Bank, the Tribunal held that such decisions should require at least a three-fifths majority (as is already required for indicting government ministers), and that automatic suspension is unconstitutional. Tusk—likely in response to international criticism—suspended proceedings against the National Bank of Poland.

In the National Broadcasting Council case, the Constitutional Tribunal issued an interim protective ruling barring the Sejm and its committees from taking any further action until the case was resolved. Despite this, members of the relevant parliamentary committee ignored the Tribunal’s decision and proceeded with hearings. In June 2025, they concluded their work and referred the indictment motion to the plenary session of the Sejm. This was a blatant violation of the Tribunal’s order. 

In July, I filed a formal notification concerning the suspected commission of serious offences against constitutional organs of the state, abuse of office, and participation in an organized criminal group by the committee members involved. Their actions—aimed at disabling and effectively removing a constitutional body through unlawful force—meet the legal definition of a constitutional coup. 

In fact, the notification I submitted in July served as a complement to the earlier submission made in January 2025 by the President of the Constitutional Tribunal, which concerned the attack on the Constitutional Tribunal itself, the Supreme Court, and the National Council of the Judiciary.

Crucially, on 16 July the Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling (case no. K 24/24), in which it confirmed—as it had in the National Bank case—that automatic suspension upon indictment is unconstitutional. Moreover, it found that a simple absolute majority (231 votes in Poland’s 460-member Sejm) is not sufficient to approve an indictment. The minimum constitutional threshold, the Tribunal ruled, is three-fifths—or 276 votes. 

In Poland, the Constitutional Tribunal acts as a negative legislator: it can strike down unconstitutional laws but cannot create new ones. As a result, a legal gap has emerged, preventing any such decisions from being lawfully adopted until Parliament enacts new legislation.

Despite this, the Marshal of the Sejm disregarded the Tribunal’s ruling and placed the Świrski case on the agenda of the Sejm’s final July session. On 25 July, the Sejm voted to indict and suspend Świrski by a majority of 237—based on provisions already found unconstitutional. Yet under the Constitution, rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal are universally binding and final.

This amounted to the deliberate disregard of a ruling of the constitutional organ—the Constitutional Tribunal—in order to forcibly remove another—the National Broadcasting Council. 

Moreover, the Sejm’s vote was the outcome of proceedings of the parliamentary committee conducted in violation of the Tribunal’s earlier injunction. In doing so, the Marshal of the Sejm and the 237 MPs involved not only breached the Constitution and the law, but also fulfilled the criteria for offences under Articles 127 and 128 of the Criminal Code: namely, actions aimed at forcibly removing a constitutional organ of the state and altering the constitutional order, as well as abuse of power by public officials under Article 231. In other words: a constitutional coup.

The President of the Constitutional Tribunal responded firmly, demanding that the Marshal of the Sejm restore constitutional order. Chairman Świrski also issued an official statement rejecting the unlawful resolution and confirming that he continues to carry out his constitutional duties. 

At the same time, four members of the Council dismissed Chairman Świrski, appointing in his place another figure associated with the conservative camp—formally with the intention of enabling the Council to continue functioning. However, this hasty decision, taken in violation of internal procedures, in fact lends legitimacy to the unlawful actions of the left-liberal majority. Time will tell whether this move can save freedom of speech in Poland, but there is ample reason for serious doubt.

Thus, while the country’s attention is understandably focused on the struggle over Karol Nawrocki’s presidency, a less visible yet equally serious constitutional coup has been unfolding in parallel. If the Council is paralyzed, freedom of speech and the independence of conservative media in Poland will collapse. And Tusk—relying on censorship—will attempt to cling to power. That is what this battle is truly about.