A Polish parliamentary committee has recommended that Adam Glapiński, governor of the National Bank of Poland (NBP), face proceedings before the State Tribunal over alleged violations of the constitution and other laws. The decision, taken on Friday, 9 October, marks a major step in a case concerning the central bank’s pandemic-era bond purchases, monetary policy decisions and alleged political involvement. However, Glapiński has not been found guilty of wrongdoing, and the recommendation must still be considered by Poland’s full parliament.
The Sejm’s Constitutional Accountability Committee adopted its final report following an investigation that began in 2024. The recommendation will now go to the Sejm, Poland’s lower house of parliament, which has the authority to decide whether to pursue constitutional accountability proceedings against the central bank governor.
Committee chairman Zdzisław Gawlik, a member of Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition (KO), said the investigation supported the allegations against Glapiński.
- Find more news from Poland on our Homepage .
According to Reuters’ reporting on the committee’s decision, Gawlik said he saw no grounds to question the justification for bringing the governor before the State Tribunal.
Glapiński rejects the accusations, maintaining that his actions complied with the law and that the proceedings are politically motivated.
What is Adam Glapiński accused of?
The case originates from a preliminary motion submitted to parliament on 26 March 2024 by 191 lawmakers from the governing coalition.
The motion contained eight allegations concerning Glapiński’s conduct as head of the NBP, including accusations relating to financial operations, the management of monetary policy and the constitutional requirement that the governor remain politically independent.
One of the central allegations concerns the NBP’s purchases of government bonds and government-guaranteed securities during 2020 and 2021.
The lawmakers who submitted the motion alleged that these operations indirectly financed Poland’s budget deficit by at least PLN 144 billion.
They also argued that some purchases were undertaken without the necessary authorisation from the Monetary Policy Council (RPP), which is responsible for setting monetary policy.
The figure represents the amount identified in the allegations, not an independently established amount of unlawful financing.
The transactions took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, when central banks in Poland and internationally introduced exceptional monetary measures to support financial markets and economic activity.
NBP documentation identifies the Polish purchases as secondary-market operations. The legal dispute concerns whether their purpose, authorisation and effects complied with Poland’s constitutional and statutory restrictions.
The original allegations reported by the Polish Press Agency also included claims involving:
- Foreign-exchange interventions allegedly conducted without proper authorisation.
- Interest-rate reductions ahead of the October 2023 parliamentary election, which the applicants alleged were politically motivated.
- Restrictions on access to information and irregularities involving the Monetary Policy Council.
- Alleged breaches of rules concerning remuneration and bonuses.
- Public conduct allegedly inconsistent with the political neutrality required of the central bank governor.
These remain allegations. The committee’s recommendation does not establish that the claimed violations occurred.
Glapiński rejects the accusations
Glapiński and the NBP have consistently challenged the allegations.
In a detailed statement issued in September 2024, the central bank rejected the accusations and maintained that the governor’s actions had been lawful.
The bank argued that the accusations lacked a sound factual and legal basis and were politically motivated.
The NBP has also defended its pandemic-era monetary operations as measures undertaken within the bank’s statutory responsibilities, rather than unlawful financing of government expenditure.
Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, 8 October, Glapiński again rejected the parliamentary proceedings.
He described them as unfounded and harmful to Poland’s interests, while stressing that neither parliament nor the government has the authority to interfere with the bank’s independent conduct of monetary policy.
The dispute therefore raises two separate questions: whether particular decisions by the governor breached Polish law, and how parliament can exercise constitutional oversight without undermining the independence of the country’s monetary authority.
Opposition warns of consequences for central bank independence
The committee’s decision has also intensified political disagreement over the case.
Iwona Arent, a deputy chair of the committee from the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, confirmed that lawmakers from Civic Coalition and some of its governing partners had supported the report.
She criticised the recommendation, arguing that the proceedings could destabilise the NBP and damage Poland’s financial stability.
Arent also reported that a minority motion opposing the committee’s recommendation had been submitted.
The case has a significant political dimension. Glapiński has longstanding connections with PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński, while the governing coalition led by Donald Tusk has pledged to investigate alleged misconduct associated with the previous PiS administration, which governed from 2015 to 2023.
Those political circumstances do not, by themselves, establish either the validity or the invalidity of the accusations.
What happens next?
The committee’s recommendation does not automatically bring Glapiński before the State Tribunal.
Under Poland’s State Tribunal Act, the Constitutional Accountability Committee must submit its findings and recommendation to the Sejm.
Lawmakers must receive the relevant report and be informed that the case files are available for inspection. Article 12 requires those files to be accessible for at least 21 days before the parliamentary sitting at which the case is considered.
Consequently, a vote cannot take place immediately following Friday’s committee decision.
No date for the full Sejm vote had been announced as of 9 October.
The Sejm may adopt a resolution to pursue proceedings or reject the recommendation. The law also allows parliament to return the committee’s report for further work.
The State Tribunal is a special constitutional body responsible for determining whether certain senior public officials have violated the constitution or other laws in connection with their official duties.
A parliamentary decision to proceed would initiate a further legal process. It would not constitute a conviction.
Constitutional ruling creates a dispute over the required majority
An important unresolved issue is the parliamentary majority required to bring the NBP governor before the State Tribunal.
The State Tribunal Act provides for a resolution concerning the central bank governor to be adopted by an absolute majority of votes, provided at least half of the Sejm’s statutory 460 members are present.
However, on 11 January 2024, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal issued a ruling challenging those provisions.
In its judgment concerning the central bank governor’s constitutional accountability, the tribunal concluded that protecting the independence of the NBP required a higher threshold.
It held that the governor should receive protection equivalent to that afforded to government ministers facing State Tribunal proceedings: a three-fifths majority of the statutory number of MPs.
That would require at least 276 votes in the 460-member Sejm.
The ruling is itself disputed.
The present government does not recognise the validity of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision, amid a broader constitutional conflict over the court’s composition and legitimacy.
The judgment was nevertheless issued and published in Poland’s official Journal of Laws, creating a significant legal disagreement over which parliamentary threshold should govern the case.
A related issue concerns the consequences for Glapiński if the Sejm votes to proceed.
The wording of the State Tribunal Act provides for suspension from official duties following a parliamentary resolution to pursue proceedings. However, the Constitutional Tribunal’s January 2024 ruling also found the automatic-suspension provisions unconstitutional as applied to the NBP governor.
The dispute therefore concerns not only whether parliament can secure enough votes, but also the legal consequences of any successful resolution.
It would be premature to treat Glapiński’s suspension as an uncontested or inevitable outcome.
Why the case matters beyond Polish politics
The proceedings could have implications beyond the immediate political dispute.
The NBP is responsible for maintaining the value of Poland’s currency, while its Monetary Policy Council sets interest rates affecting households, businesses and financial markets.
Central bank independence is also protected under European Union law.
In December 2023, European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde warned that measures unlawfully affecting Glapiński’s ability to perform his duties could raise concerns about central bank independence.
Her letter to the NBP governor also explained the possibility of seeking review by the Court of Justice of the European Union if a parliamentary measure affected his position.
That correspondence addressed institutional and legal safeguards. It did not determine whether the subsequent allegations against Glapiński were justified.
Glapiński is serving his second and final term as NBP governor, which is due to expire in June 2028.
Friday’s decision moves the long-running dispute into a potentially decisive parliamentary phase, but several questions remain unresolved.
The next substantive step lies with the Sejm, where lawmakers must decide whether the committee’s recommendation warrants constitutional accountability proceedings against the head of one of Poland’s most important financial institutions.
