Power struggle over Poland's Constitutional Court: President Karol Nawrocki fears for his country's internal security

Poland’s Constitutional Court became the center of a direct confrontation between President Karol Nawrocki and the government of Donald Tusk. The immediate trigger was a website notice saying court president Bogdan Święczkowski and his deputy had been suspended, with judge Anna Korwin-Piotrowska taking temporary leadership. The court later said hackers had posted the notice.

Nawrocki returned early from Senegal and entered the court at night, using physical force to get inside. He then demanded the withdrawal of government security forces and called for constitutional order to be restored. Police had sealed the building, while demonstrators gathered outside. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek called the president’s conduct unacceptable and inflammatory.

The dispute reflects a deeper struggle over judges appointed during PiS rule and reforms promised by Tusk’s coalition. The European Court of Justice had questioned the court’s independence. Nawrocki called urgent talks among parliamentary parties, but the confrontation has also prompted resignations by two PiS-aligned ambassadors.

A constitutional court is a judicial body that examines whether laws and important state actions comply with a country’s constitution. The constitution sets the basic rules of government. The court helps enforce those rules when politicians, institutions, or citizens challenge them. Its decisions can affect legislation, appointments, and the powers of public authorities.

Control matters because the court is meant to act independently of the political branches. In Poland, the dispute concerns judges appointed during the PiS period and later attempts by the Tusk government to reverse contested judicial changes. The European Court of Justice said serious appointment problems meant the Polish court could not be viewed as independent and impartial at that time.

If one political side dominates the court, its rulings may be seen as partisan. That can weaken public trust and create competing claims about which judges or leaders are legitimate. Poland’s current confrontation shows how control of a constitutional court can become a wider struggle over the country’s constitutional order.

The main actors are President Karol Nawrocki, the PiS-aligned camp, and Donald Tusk’s Mitte-links governing coalition. Nawrocki says the country’s internal security and constitutional order are threatened. He demands that government security forces leave the court grounds and wants urgent talks to stabilize politics. Former court president Bogdan Święczkowski also supports this position.

The government’s side includes Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek. They are pursuing a promised rollback of controversial PiS changes to the judiciary. Żurek says Nawrocki’s entry into the building was unacceptable and used the crisis to inflame emotions in the streets. The government’s broader argument is that judicial independence must be restored.

The court’s disputed leadership illustrates the conflict. A notice announced Święczkowski’s suspension and named Anna Korwin-Piotrowska acting leader, then a court post blamed hackers. Each side therefore presents itself as defending legality, but they disagree over which judges and authorities are legitimate.

President Karol Nawrocki refused to swear in five constitutional judges nominated by Parliament. The article presents this as one of several obstacles to the Tusk government’s attempt to undo controversial judicial changes made during PiS rule. The number is important because it shows the dispute involved multiple judicial appointments, not only a single court leadership decision.

The five judges did not simply disappear from the process. They took their oath of office before Parliament instead. However, Bogdan Święczkowski, the court president appointed during the PiS period, refused them access to the Constitutional Court building. This created a practical conflict between parliamentary nomination, presidential recognition, and the court’s control over entry.

The episode shows how an appointment dispute can become an institutional deadlock. Different authorities claimed a role in validating the judges, while the court’s leadership controlled the building. The article does not state how the five cases will ultimately be resolved, but they remain part of the wider constitutional crisis.

The PiS government ruled Poland from 2015 to 2023 and appointed judges who were politically close to the party. The article says this changed the composition of the Constitutional Court and created doubts about whether it could act independently from the government that shaped it. The court’s former president was also appointed during that period.

The key mechanism was the appointment process. When judges and the court’s leadership are selected through procedures seen as defective or politically controlled, later decisions may be viewed as partisan. The European Court of Justice found serious shortcomings in the appointment of Polish judges and the then court president. It concluded that the court could not be considered independent and impartial at that time.

After Tusk’s Mitte-links coalition took office following the 2023 election, it promised to reverse PiS changes to the judiciary. Progress has been slow, partly because Nawrocki has blocked appointments and other government steps. The result is an ongoing struggle over which institutions and judges have lawful authority.

When rival authorities claim control of a constitutional court, the government can face an institutional deadlock. Laws may be challenged by one side and defended by another. Public officials may not know which judges or court decisions are valid. The legal system then loses a clear final interpreter of constitutional rules, and political conflict can spread beyond the courthouse.

Poland’s dispute provides a concrete example. A court notice suspended Bogdan Święczkowski and named Anna Korwin-Piotrowska as acting leader. A later court post denied that announcement and blamed hackers. Nawrocki demanded government security forces leave, while Święczkowski called the president’s entry a coup. Five parliamentary nominees also remained blocked from the building.

Such a conflict can weaken trust, delay appointments, and make government decisions harder to carry out. It can also intensify street protests and divide state officials, as shown by two PiS-aligned ambassadors resigning. The article gives no final resolution, but Nawrocki’s call for cross-party talks shows that stabilization remains necessary.

Separation of powers divides state authority among institutions so that no single political leader controls lawmaking, government, and judging. Judicial independence means judges must decide cases without political orders or retaliation. The rule of law requires leaders and institutions to follow the constitution and valid legal procedures, including rules for judicial appointments.

Together, these principles limit control in practical ways. A president cannot treat the court as a personal instrument. A government cannot remove judges merely because it dislikes their decisions. Parliament cannot bypass every appointment safeguard. Courts must also use lawful procedures and give reasons for their actions. In Poland, disputes over five judges, court leadership, and access to the building show how these limits can be tested.

The article describes competing claims rather than a settled outcome. Nawrocki says constitutional order must be restored, while Tusk’s government seeks to reverse PiS-era judicial changes. The deeper safeguard is institutional acceptance of lawful procedures. Without it, even formal powers can become tools in a political struggle.