Marian Banaś, the head of Poland’s Supreme Audit Office (NIK), has gone from being a member of the government to one of its most powerful opponents, with his office publishing a series of reports accusing ministers of unlawful activity. Yet Banaś himself has also been investigated over corruption allegations, with some claiming that he is using NIK as part of his struggle with former allies in the ruling camp.
In an exclusive interview, Agnieszka Wądołowska asked Banaś about NIK’s findings against the government, how they can have legal consequences given that prosecutors are under the oversight of the justice minister, and claims that he is using audits for political purposes.
Agnieszka Wądołowska: Until 2019 you were a member of the current government. After you were nominated as head of NIK, the Rzeczpospolita daily wrote: “Jarosław Kaczyński has entrusted the role of head of this institution to one of the most trusted and loyal people.” But since then, you have been seen as a government opponent and critic. Why is that?
Marian Banaś: I serve the state and I don’t regard myself as a critic or opponent of the government. As president of NIK, I want and am obliged to remain impartial and apolitical, and I will firmly defend that. The task of NIK has always been to keep an eye on those in government, regardless of who that might be. We audit the spending of public money – that is the money of citizens – and not any given ruling camp.
Since you became NIK president you have had to contend with a series of accusations, including about irregularities in your financial statements. You reject the charges. But does the very fact that there are clouds of serious accusations gathering around an oversight institution not cast a shadow on the institution itself?
I absolutely do not agree with these charges that have appeared in the media and that the public prosecutor’s office wants to place on me. My representatives and I have on many occasions pointed to the lack of logic and the prosecutor’s office’s violation of procedures. For example: the application to suspend my immunity was signed by a person who did not have a legal basis to do so. So at least in terms of procedural infringements, it is not effective. I don’t even wish to return to the question of its context, as I’ve explained that many times.
But it might be interesting that the authorities who have been examining my financial statements since 1992 saw nothing of concern…until I became president of the Supreme Audit Office. That’s when doubts arose.
According to your opponents, NIK reports critical of the government are an attempt to repel attacks, and not results of objective audits.
I do not conduct any audits myself – that is done by NIK auditors, who are first-class professionals, experts in their fields. If somebody says that NIK audits are political, that insults these auditors and undermines their impartiality, objectivity, apolitical character, hard work, and service to the state. The choice of subjects of NIK audits has nothing to do with attacks on me, and I think their quality and results reflect well on NIK’s impartiality.
As for accusations against me, everything that has happened shows that the attempt to slander me and attack my good name is a vendetta and revenge. As is the publication of articles with the contents of documents or materials available to the public prosecutor’s office or secret services. It is hard not to wonder about the true intentions and objectives of these actions. To cite one typical situation: on a day when we organised a press conference on the “postal election”, suddenly information appeared that a bomb had been planted at the NIK headquarters.
NIK reports show that not every zloty is spent appropriately – for example the audit of the cancelled presidential election.
Yes, there are many mechanisms operating in Poland at present that should not take place. We indicated that with the budget audit, showing that the government – exercising, one might say, creative accounting – left 290 billion zloty outside the budget, which de facto should have been declared but was not.
The government doubtless won’t be happy that we show this, but that is what our public finances look like. To a large extent we live on loans which will have to be paid back by none other than taxpayers. I think that citizens should know about that if they’re supposed to evaluate the government’s actions objectively.
In the case you mentioned – the postal presidential election – the law was broken, and 130 million zloty was spent unlawfully.
The next audit, which was also awkward for the government, was that of the Justice Fund, within which 280 million zloty was spent not in accordance with the rules of spending public money.
You speak of various irregularities, but what are the practical consequences of NIK audits? Is it not the case that the politicisation of the public prosecutor’s office means that NIK reports have no consequences?
Currently NIK is uncovering irregularities, pointing to cases of breaking the law, formulating and sending notifications to the public prosecutor’s office. But note that it is that same prosecutor’s office, under the jurisdiction of the justice minister, that will decide whether the justice minister committed a crime. So de facto we have a situation in which the justice minister is supposed to rule on himself. This is an oddity. It absolutely should not happen.
Here we can cite other solutions, present in many European countries, in which national audit offices have prosecutorial powers and can themselves submit indictments to the appropriate courts. In Poland at present, the public prosecutor’s office de facto becomes a “preliminary hearing” – before the court, it rules on itself, thereby guaranteeing impunity to certain officials.
I see this as a very serious institutional oversight that shows the problems with rule of law that we have in our country. I think that NIK should be able to submit indictments directly to a court.
Since notifications of suspicion of a crime do not have legal consequences, do you think they can influence public opinion on the ruling party, and might therefore also affect the political order in Poland?
I’m sure they can. Although this need not mean a change to this particular administration, because all that is needed is for the current government to take heed of our findings. The government just needs to implement corrective measures. Looking at the results of the audit and what happens to notifications sent by NIK to the public prosecutor’s office, it is hard not to wonder whether such a will exists.
How are plans for further audits looking? According to reports, NIK is planning to look into the digging of a canal in the Vistula Spit – a flagship project for PiS – as well as the provision of public information by governmental administration units. Will those plans come to fruition?
Next year we plan to carry out ambitious audits concerning the most important questions of the functioning of the state. The audit plan has been accepted. In mid-December 2021 the NIK council considered audits including one of the Vistula Spit and actions to safeguard Poland’s eastern border, but ultimately it rejected those audits.
But I should stress that, because of their importance for society, these audits will take place. We will do that as a so-called ad hoc audit. As president of NIK, I make decisions individually in such cases.
Plans were also supposed to include audits on the COVID-19 fund and spending of state-owned companies and their affiliated foundations. Have these been accepted?
We are already carrying out some of these audits. We are halfway through auditing the State Development Fund and will have the results in a few months.
We have also checked the spending of the Polish National Foundation (PFN), but that audit could take longer as we’re struggling with obstacles from their side. Representatives of the PFN don’t want to provide us with documents, and also claim that we don’t have a legal basis to audit money coming from state-owned companies into foundations or associations as they say it is not public funds.
That’s absurd. State-owned companies are far from being some private institution with private funds. We will therefore do what is needed to obtain the necessary documents and finalise the audit.
Apart from accusations against you, there have also been attacks on your family. What is your interpretation of that?
Unfortunately, a very clear one. The aim is for me to give up the position and a political commissar to replace me who will carry out audits only in a way that is convenient for the government. That is also the objective of the attempt to strip me of my immunity.
I see this as lawlessness and barbarism. How else do you treat anonymous tipoffs, including on the day of a planned conference presenting results of audits, about my son wanting to commit suicide? Or harassment of my daughter-in-law?
There were similar overtones when my son was arrested with his wife at Kraków airport on returning from holiday and taken to the prosecutor’s office in Białystok. Are these not attempts to exert pressure on me? If NIK does not conduct “awkward” audits, I’ll be left alone. Me and my family.
That was a series of spectacular actions designed to show that the government can actually do anything and intimidate anyone. Except that in my case it does not work. And will not work.
Why?
Because I went through a lot during the communist era and those experiences shaped me. Including tragic moments. On the first day of martial law, my wife and I lost our baby – the stress caused her to miscarry. Then I was blacklisted, imprisoned, and then removed from judicial training and doctoral studies.
To tell the truth, everything I’ve done since I turned 16 has been for Poland. I also knew that was dangerous and threatening. I had the chance to leave the country with a one-way ticket, but I refused, because I always knew Poland was my place. That is why I appeal to everybody who would like to leave: don’t do that, stay here and let’s get to work! Much can be changed, and good will prevail in the end. I’m sure of that, which is why I do what I do!
Main image credit: Dawid Zuchowicz / Agencja Wyborcza.pl
Agnieszka Wądołowska is deputy editor of Notes from Poland. She has previously worked for Gazeta.pl and Tokfm.pl and contributed to Gazeta Wyborcza, Wysokie Obcasy, Duży Format, Midrasz and Kultura Liberalna
