The National Prosecutors Office indicted Piotr P., who led the Internal Security Agency (ABW) from 2015 to 2016, and Maciej M., who headed the Military Counterintelligence Service (SKW) from 2018 to 2022. Each faces up to three years in prison. According to the prosecutors, the pair allegedly authorized the use of Pegasus despite being aware that the system lacked the required IT security accreditation. The indictment alleges this failure in duty risked compromising classified information, including materials designated as “secret” or “top-secret.”
While the prosecutors withheld their surnames in the initial release under Polish privacy law, Maciej Materka, the former SKW chief, publicly acknowledged the charges through a social media post, condemning the action. The Pegasus software, developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group, is capable of taking total control of a mobile device, accessing secure messaging apps, and recording audio without the user’s knowledge.
The criminal charges are part of a broader investigation launched by the National Prosecutor’s Office in March to examine the use of Pegasus from November 2017 to December 2022. Investigators have focused on the procurement process and the legal basis for the deployment of the spyware. In recent weeks, police and prosecutors seized Pegasus systems and related documents from the headquarters of the Central Anticorruption Bureau, the ABW, the SKW, and the Police. These materials have been transferred to the Forensic Research Office of the ABW to determine the software’s functionality and the legality of its operations.
Poland’s Justice Minister, Adam Bodnar, has stated that nearly 600 people were targeted by the spyware during the PiS government’s tenure. The targets included journalists, civil society leaders, and political opponents, such as Krzysztof Brejza, a member of the European Parliament who was campaigning for the opposition Civic Platform party in 2019. While the government maintains that some surveillance may have been part of legitimate criminal investigations, Bodnar indicated that the full list of targets remains confidential to protect the integrity of ongoing cases. Victims will be notified individually by letter, giving them the option to seek financial compensation or join criminal proceedings.
The legal landscape surrounding the Pegasus investigation has been complicated by institutional conflicts. In September, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal (TK) ruled that a parliamentary commission established to investigate the spyware’s use was unconstitutional in its scope. The commission’s head, MP Magdalena Sroka, dismissed the ruling as having no legal force, arguing it was issued with the involvement of a judge illegally appointed under the PiS regime. Despite the TK issuing an interim order to halt the commission’s work, the ruling coalition, which rejects the legitimacy of the current TK composition, continued its proceedings.
The parliamentary commission, which began its work in February, has already called PiS chairman Jarosław Kaczyński as a witness, though other party members have refused to testify. The commission’s findings in September alleged that the 2019 surveillance of Senator Brejza involved “gross violations of constitutional standards” and rendered the election process unfair. Experts have noted that while court orders were generally obtained for surveillance, judges were often not provided with full information about the specific technology being authorized, leading to a lack of proper judicial oversight.
Other figures, including former Deputy Prime Minister Kaczyński, former Deputy Minister of Justice Michał Woś, and other Ministry of Justice employees, have testified regarding the purchase and use of the software. The investigation continues to examine whether funds meant for crime victims were misused to acquire the spyware, a charge that adds to the allegations of abuse of power against former officials. As the forensic analysis of the seized devices concludes, prosecutors are expected to determine the extent of the system’s deployment and whether further charges will be brought against additional individuals involved in the decision-making process.
