The MPs failed to override the presidential veto on the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure

On Friday, the Sejm did not reject President Karol Nawrocki's veto to the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not possible to obtain the 3/5 majority of votes required to re-adopt the act.

440 MPs took part in the vote. 244 MPs voted for re-adopting the act, i.e. overriding the veto, 180 were against and 16 people abstained. The 3/5 majority needed to re-pass the bill was 264 votes.

To reject the presidential veto – i.e. to re-adopt the bill – a three-fifths majority of votes in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of deputies is required.

What was the amendment about?

The extensive amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure and other acts of February 27 referred to a number of issues of criminal procedure. It includes, among others: a new, different approach to the possibility of applying temporary arrests due to the so-called severity of punishment. Another aspect of the changes related to the possibility of using the so-called illegal evidence. The amendment also includes a change in the definition of a suspect, according to which a person could obtain the status of a suspect from the moment of arrest on suspicion of a crime.

Other of the numerous changes in the amendment concerned issues related to the European arrest warrant system, the use of evidence, the confidentiality of contacts between the suspect and his defense lawyer, as well as the deadlines for filing an appeal.

President Karol Nawrocki decided to veto this amendment on March 13. The president's spokesman, Rafał Leśkiewicz, informed then that such a decision was made by the president “out of concern for the safety of citizens and the effectiveness of the state in the fight against the most dangerous crime.” The justification for the veto included, among others: the lack of clarity and systemic coherence of some new solutions.

Minister of Justice, Attorney General Waldemar Żurek stated on Friday that the change vetoed by the president was not intended to “protect” anyone, but to limit the abuse of pre-trial detention, tidy up the regulations and “strengthen citizens' guarantees in clashes with the state.” In his opinion, this is why there was “so much political clamor” around the reform. (PAP)

ef/ kos/ par/