Background

On 25 June 2026, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the requirement for the prime minister’s countersignature on acts appointing court assessors is unconstitutional. On 28 July, President Karol Nawrocki handed appointment acts to 229 assessors (211 for district courts and 18 for voivodeship administrative courts) without first submitting them to Prime Minister Donald Tusk for countersignature, citing the Tribunal’s ruling. The National Council of the Judiciary (KRS) then forwarded the documents to the Prime Minister’s office, arguing that under Article 144 of the Constitution, official acts of the president not explicitly listed require the prime minister’s signature.

Tusk’s “Solomonic solution”

On 5 August, Tusk announced he had signed the first of over 200 appointment documents. He described the situation as a “political conspiracy” between the president and the Constitutional Tribunal to break the constitution. He said the Tribunal, in its “incorrect composition” led by Bogdan Święczkowski, had responded to President Nawrocki’s “order” by declaring countersignature unnecessary. Tusk warned that without his signature, any ruling by the newly appointed assessors could be challenged, potentially paralysing the work of the entire group. He said the 200 assessors could handle 10,000 to 11,000 cases per month. The prime minister called his move a “Solomonic solution”: court presidents had returned the “defective” appointment documents to the KRS, which forwarded them to him so that countersignature could be placed on them “against the will of the president and Mr. Święczkowski.”

“Two institutions responsible for protecting and respecting the constitution have formed something like a political conspiracy to break this constitution.”

President’s office: signatures have no legal effect

Zbigniew Bogucki, head of the President’s Chancellery, rejected Tusk’s move. He said the prime minister’s signatures on the individual appointment acts are not countersignature and have no legal significance. He called them “signatures of unconditional capitulation” to the president’s exclusive constitutional prerogative, confirmed by the Tribunal’s ruling. Bogucki listed six arguments: countersignature was never applied to individual appointment acts but only to the president’s decision; Article 106 §1 of the Law on the Common Courts states that assessors are appointed by the president on the motion of the KRS, with no mention of countersignature; the Tribunal’s ruling of 25 June confirmed the absence of such an obligation; the Supreme Court’s First President had submitted the motion to the Tribunal; and forcing assessors to submit their appointment acts for “neo-countersignature” constitutes pressure on the judiciary and an anti-democratic interference in judicial independence.

“Your signatures on the appointment of assessors, which the assessors have already received from the hands of President Nawrocki, are not countersignature - they have no legal significance. They are only a dramatic and inept attempt to get out of the legal quagmire that you created and in which you are entangled.”

Justice minister and expert weigh in

Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek supported the prime minister, saying that without countersignature the nominations would be invalid and the assessors had been “taken hostage.” He argued that the Tribunal’s ruling was issued by an improperly composed body and would not be recognised. Constitutional law professor Adam Sulikowski of the University of Wrocław told Fakt that President Nawrocki is “expanding his activity in the area of the judiciary beyond the scope of competences clearly defined in the Constitution.” He called the June Tribunal ruling erroneous, saying it applied reasoning by analogy.

“They were taken hostage. If there were no countersignature, their rulings would be challenged.”

Political fallout

The dispute also drew a social media intervention from MEP Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz of the Civic Coalition, who suggested the president’s behaviour stemmed from “illiteracy, lack of knowledge or a vile character.” Her post, however, contained multiple spelling and punctuation errors, prompting widespread mockery online. The clash illustrates the deepening rift between the government and the president over the judiciary, with both sides claiming constitutional authority.