Rząd atakuje dziennikarzy za zadawanie trudnych pytań ws. ataku w Krakowie [TEKST W JĘZYKU ANGIELSKIM, UDOSTĘPNIJ DALEJ]

Krakow terror attack: Government targets journalists for asking tough questions

Six people killed, fifteen injured, a desperate struggle to save lives, and serious questions about security at one of Poland’s most iconic landmarks. When gunfire erupted in Krakow’s Main Market Square on November 7, Tomasz Sakiewicz was among the first journalists to begin broadcasting live from the scene. Rather than simply reporting on the unfolding tragedy, he also drew attention to the apparent absence of police patrols and raised questions about how the security services had organised their response. Yet the focus of some ruling coalition politicians and commentators soon shifted away from Krakow’s security arrangements and towards TV Republika itself. Calls emerged for the broadcaster to have its licence revoked, its president received threats, advertisers began withdrawing their campaigns, and prosecutors subsequently opened an investigation into statements made on air. Meanwhile, further journalistic findings and newly released footage revealed that the dispute over what happened in the square was far more complex than some had sought to portray.

Tekst dostępny na portalu PolandDaily24.com - LINK 

November 7: Gunfire in the heart of Krakow

The afternoon of Saturday, November 7, 2026, turned central Krakow into the scene of one of the deadliest crimes in Poland’s recent history.

At approximately 3 p.m., a masked 24-year-old man, Michał Oksiński, drove a black Subaru into the Main Market Square. Near Sławkowska Street, he began firing at random pedestrians before continuing through the city’s historic centre, shooting at people as they fled.

According to the timeline published by the police, a police patrol car began pursuing the attacker at 3:01 p.m., and a municipal guard vehicle joined the chase at 3:01:11 p.m. Just seconds later, at 3:01:28 p.m., the gunman opened fire on a tram near Franciszkańska Street.

The pursuit ended at the intersection of Stradomska and Dietla streets, where the attacker’s vehicle collided with another car. An exchange of gunfire with police officers followed. According to the official police timeline, both the attacker and the two officers who intervened were wounded at 3:03:03 p.m.

The toll was devastating: six people were killed and fifteen injured, including two police officers. Initial reports also referred to sixteen injured individuals, a figure that included the wounded attacker.

Later that same day, investigators discovered the bodies of the gunman’s parents and his 21-year-old sister in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski. According to prosecutors’ findings, Michał Oksiński was also responsible for their deaths. The attacker himself died in a Kraków hospital on Monday, November 9.

Given the scale of the tragedy, attention inevitably turned not only to how officers had stopped the gunman, but also to how the scene had been secured, how the injured had been assisted, and how the safety of those remaining in the square had been ensured.

3:19 p.m.: Sakiewicz’s phone call changes TV Republika’s programming

At the time of the attack, Tomasz Sakiewicz was in central Kraków, attending a demonstration taking place several hundred metres from the Main Market Square. Upon learning of the shooting, he headed towards the scene.

The events of those crucial minutes were later described on X by Tomasz Kalinowski, who was serving as TV Republika’s duty editor on November 7.

At 3:18 p.m., Sakiewicz first notified the journalists of the shooting in Krakow. A minute later he called Kalinowski.

According to Kalinowski, he received a call from Sakiewicz at 3:19 p.m., informing him of the shooting, the fatalities, and the urgent need to put him on air. Kalinowski decided to interrupt the news bulletin presented by Dariusz Wrzosek. At 3:20 p.m., TV Republika began broadcasting live from Kraków’s Main Market Square.

There was no prepared reporting position, no camera crew, and no opportunity to calmly verify every piece of information. Sakiewicz broadcast using his mobile phone, moving among the injured, emergency responders, and terrified members of the public.

In his initial reports, he described fatalities, rescue helicopters landing nearby, municipal guards responding to the emergency, and the chaos engulfing the city centre. Early estimates of the death toll were still incomplete. Kalinowski later recalled that, for approximately twenty minutes, TV Republika was the only television outlet providing live coverage directly from the scene. It was under these circumstances that Sakiewicz made the remarks that would become one of the central points of political and media controversy in the days that followed.

“Where are the police?” The question that sparked a storm

Throughout the broadcast, Sakiewicz repeatedly drew attention to the apparent absence of police patrols in the immediate vicinity of the injured victims.

He showed municipal guards, paramedics, and members of the public attempting to help the wounded. At the same time, he questioned who was securing the area and why no police patrol cars were visible within the camera’s field of view.

In one of the most widely circulated excerpts from his broadcast, he said:

“Where are the police? I can’t see a single police officer, but I can see some very aggressive people.”

The journalist’s critics subsequently pointed out that an officer wearing dark, partly civilian clothing with a police insignia could be seen in the background of the footage. On that basis, they accused Sakiewicz of providing false information.

The problem is that the presence of a single officer does not, in itself, answer questions about the actual extent of the police deployment in the Main Market Square.

Nor should the actions of officers pursuing the attacker near Dietla Street be equated with the presence of patrols securing the area where the shooting had initially taken place. These are two separate issues that were repeatedly conflated in the public debate.

Furthermore, in a longer excerpt from the original broadcast released by TV Republika on November 13, Sakiewicz explicitly acknowledged the presence of an officer in civilian clothing.

“That man who appeared just a moment ago, perhaps that’s the case, but he’s a plainclothes police officer. Nevertheless, there still isn’t a single police patrol car in sight.”

This statement is particularly important in assessing the controversy. It demonstrates that Sakiewicz’s reporting did not consist solely of categorical denials that any police officers were present. At one point, he himself identified an officer while maintaining his concerns about the lack of visible police support.

This does not establish that every statement he made during the live broadcast was accurate. It does, however, illustrate how easily an excerpt taken out of context can become the basis for far-reaching accusations.

From tragedy to political confrontation: Calls to revoke the broadcaster’s licence

Criticism of TV Republika quickly moved beyond a substantive debate over its coverage of the tragedy.

Robert Kropiwnicki of the Civic Coalition (KO), appearing on Radio ZET, accused the broadcaster of manipulation and exploiting the tragedy before declaring that it should lose its broadcasting licence.

A similar position was expressed by KO MEP Bartosz Arłukowicz. Speaking on Radio Szczecin, he accused Sakiewicz of creating chaos and endangering public safety, while also advocating the revocation of TV Republika’s right to broadcast.

Representatives of other media outlets also joined the criticism. TVN24 journalist Patryk Michalski described TV Republika’s coverage as conduct that undermined national security and public order.

These were serious accusations. However, demanding that a broadcaster be stripped of its licence over its coverage of a dramatic event goes considerably further than ordinary journalistic criticism.

In a democratic state, media outlets can make mistakes and should be held accountable for them. They should also correct unverified information. That does not mean, however, that politicians are entitled to use a controversial broadcast as a pretext for demanding the removal of an inconvenient television station from the media landscape.

The Association of Polish Journalists (SDP) responded to the actions directed against TV Republika. The organisation condemned calls for the station’s closure, warning of the dangers of restricting freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.

Sakiewicz responds: “We were there with those who were dying”

On Sunday, November 8, Sakiewicz issued a statement defending his decision to report directly from the Main Market Square.

He emphasised that he had described the situation as he personally witnessed it and that his concerns about police presence related primarily to the immediate area surrounding the victims.

He also pointed out that his attention had been focused on people desperately seeking assistance and information.

“We were there with those who were dying, those who were injured, and, above all, hundreds of terrified people desperately searching for any information.”

The statement became one of the central elements of TV Republika’s response to the criticism.

At the same time, the broadcaster’s president highlighted the heroism of the police officers who stopped the gunman, the courage of municipal guards, and the dedication of emergency responders. He argued, however, that recognising the bravery of individual officers could not replace scrutiny of the organisational decisions made by police commanders.

Sakiewicz also received significant support from Law and Justice (PiS) MP Przemysław Czarnek. Writing on X, Czarnek argued that the journalist had a duty to describe what he witnessed and that the Ministry of the Interior and Administration and the National Police Headquarters should disclose details of the security arrangements in Kraków.

The dispute therefore concerned not only the credibility of one journalist’s report, but also the extent of political responsibility for public safety.

A parallel controversy: Minister Kierwiński and the far-right hypothesis

At the same time, another controversy emerged that quickly spread beyond Poland’s borders.

As early as Saturday evening, Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński publicly suggested that the attacker might have been fascinated by far-right ideologies. He nevertheless acknowledged that this information still required verification.

The minister’s remarks rapidly reached the international media. They were reported by Reuters and the Associated Press, among others. Some reports retained the caveat that the claims reflected the authorities’ preliminary suspicions. Nevertheless, the alleged ideological background of the attacker began to emerge as one of the dominant elements in international coverage of the Kraków tragedy.

The problem was clear: when the minister made those remarks, investigators had not yet conclusively established the gunman’s motive.

Journalist Dominika Ćosić appealed to foreign reporters on X, urging them to refrain from spreading unverified information about the attacker’s alleged far-right views.

Meanwhile, screenshots allegedly taken from social media profiles belonging to Michał Oksiński began circulating online, purportedly suggesting anti-religious, left-wing, or anti-fascist views.

Such material was shared, among other places, through a post by X user drKorneljus. The matter was also discussed in posts involving the Grok account.

Spanish MEP Hermann Tertsch also joined the debate, commenting on X on reports concerning the attacker and the actions of the Polish authorities, including allegations that the gunman’s Facebook profile had been removed.

On November 10, Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek, meanwhile, disclosed findings indicating that Oksiński had visited websites devoted to Anders Breivik, as well as information about other objects and symbols being examined in connection with possible ideological motivations.

Nevertheless, the central question for Kierwiński remains unanswered: What specific, verified information formed the basis of his public assessment just hours after the tragedy, and why did he decide to present it before investigators had completed their initial findings?

Death threats, advertisers, and thirteen questions for the authorities

In the days that followed, the conflict began to have increasingly serious consequences for Sakiewicz personally.

TV Republika’s CEO revealed that he had received dozens of threats against his life and the safety of his family members. According to his account, a man had also contacted the newsroom and declared his intention to kill him.

One of the messages contained a particularly brutal reference to violence against the journalist. Sakiewicz linked the escalation of threats to the wave of criticism that had followed his broadcast from Kraków.

At the same time, the controversy began to have commercial repercussions. On November 9, electronics retailer RTV EURO AGD announced that it was suspending advertising on TV Republika. In its statement, the company cited controversy surrounding the broadcaster’s coverage of the tragedy and the need to take reputational considerations into account.

Sakiewicz responded by calling for a boycott of the retailer, describing its decision as another form of pressure on a broadcaster independent of the government.

On Tuesday, November 10, Sakiewicz published thirteen questions on X, addressed to those responsible for national security.

Among other matters, he asked about the number of officers present in the Main Market Square, the equipment available to police patrols, the time at which patrol cars arrived, how the pursuit had been organised, the availability of reinforcements, and the number of officers deployed from Kraków to other parts of the country.

He also demanded an explanation of where Minister Kierwiński had obtained information concerning the attacker’s possible right-wing views.

At the same time, he declared that he had no intention of yielding to threats or pressure.

His message was unequivocal: TV Republika would not abandon its efforts to establish the circumstances surrounding the tragedy.

141 officers sent to Warsaw, just ten patrolling the Old Town: Findings that changed the debate

On Wednesday, November 11, Niezalezna.pl journalists Tomasz Grodecki and Grzegorz Wszołek presented information obtained from the Małopolska police.

According to the official response provided to the journalists, 141 officers from the Kraków Police Prevention Unit had been deployed to Warsaw on November 7.

On the same day, between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m., ten officers in five mobile patrols were assigned to Kraków’s Old Town. An additional patrol was permanently stationed near the consulates on Stolarska Street. A police officer and a municipal guard were also on duty at the police station in the Main Market Square itself.

These figures are highly significant when assessing security arrangements at one of Poland’s most frequently visited locations.

At the same time, the police reported that 64 preventive patrols, comprising 128 officers, were on duty across Kraków. This figure should not be confused with the total number of police officers serving in the city that day.

Police headquarters also presented its own timeline of the response. According to that account, a patrol car entered the Main Market Square from Sienna Street at 3:01:05 p.m. and began pursuing the attacker. The police maintain that four patrol-car crews appeared in the vicinity of the square between 2:59 p.m. and 3:07 p.m., and that twenty patrols were deployed to the operation within half an hour.

This does not, however, eliminate questions about the deployment of officers, the time taken to secure specific locations, the availability of units capable of confronting an armed attacker, or why some witnesses reported seeing no police patrols directing members of the public in the square for a considerable time after the attack.

Furthermore, the mere fact that 141 officers were deployed to Warsaw does not prove that this decision caused inadequate security arrangements in Kraków. Reaching such a conclusion would require information about planned and actual staffing levels, available reserves, and decisions made by police commanders.

Nevertheless, the journalists’ findings provided a basis for asking far more specific questions than those raised immediately after the shooting.

Police accuse journalists of misleading the public as TV Republika publishes correspondence

The publication of these figures triggered another round of controversy. On the evening of November 11, the Małopolska police posted a statement on X accusing media outlets of spreading false information about the number of officers on duty in Kraków.

Police headquarters disputed the claim that only 128 officers had been working across the entire city. It stressed that the figure referred to specific types of duty rather than the total number of officers.

Niezalezna.pl journalists responded by publishing more extensive documentation. They argued that their article had not claimed there were only 128 police officers in total, but had directly quoted the police spokesperson’s statement concerning preventive patrol duties.

The editorial team also released the questions submitted to the police, the dates of the correspondence, and excerpts from the official responses.

The dispute was therefore no longer solely about impressions formed during a live broadcast. It had become a debate over the interpretation of official data and how public institutions communicate with the media.

If the police believed that the published information had been misinterpreted, their priority should have been to disclose the complete data and make independent verification possible.

Niezalezna.pl also requested CCTV footage that would allow the official timeline to be compared with the actual presence of police patrol cars in different parts of the city centre.

Witnesses and a former counterterrorism officer revisit Sakiewicz’s questions

Among those who publicly challenged the way the police response had been portrayed was Law and Justice MP Małgorzata Wassermann. Speaking on TV Republika, she recounted the experiences of her sister and niece, who had been in central Kraków during the attack.

According to Wassermann, the two women spent a considerable amount of time not knowing where the gunfire was coming from, whether the attacker was acting alone, or whether it was safe to leave the square. The MP stated that, even at around 4 p.m., her sister could not see any police officers directing the movement of people in the area.

Wassermann stressed that her criticism was not directed at the officers who had confronted the gunman. Rather, it concerned how the operation had been organised and commanded.

A similar issue was raised by Marcin Mieszkowski, a former officer of the Polish Police Central Counterterrorism Unit BOA, in an interview published by the Polish Press Agency (PAP). He acknowledged that, in the footage he had examined from the first minutes following the attack, he had not noticed any police foot patrols of the kind he had previously seen regularly in that part of Kraków.

At the same time, he praised the actions of the officers who stopped the attacker, describing them as heroes. This is an important distinction.

Footage and eyewitness accounts cannot, by themselves, establish the total number of officers present in the area. They do, however, demonstrate why questions about the visible presence of police patrols, the securing of the crime scene, and the provision of information to people facing danger deserve answers.

November 12: Prosecutors launch an investigation into statements broadcast by TV Republika

On Thursday, November 12, the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Kraków announced that it had opened an investigation into statements broadcast by TV Republika following the attack. Its statement referred to Article 212(2) and Article 257 of the Polish Criminal Code, concerning, respectively, defamation committed through the mass media and public insults motivated by nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.

According to explanations provided by the prosecutor’s office spokesperson, the proceedings concerned, among other things, statements about the absence of police officers and suggestions that the attacker was a foreign national. It is worth emphasising that, in the first hours following the tragedy, unverified reports about the possible involvement of foreigners had indeed appeared on TV Republika. Subsequent findings established that the perpetrator was a Polish citizen. This is an example of information that required correction and careful assessment.

However, the opening of an investigation does not establish that a criminal offence has been committed, while any legal assessment of the statements must take account of their full content and the circumstances in which they were made.

The prosecutor’s decision prompted a strong response from the Independent Association of Prosecutors “Ad Vocem”.

The organisation criticised the involvement of prosecutors in matters concerning media statements, warning of the risk that criminal law could be used instrumentally against critics of the government. Representatives of the association compared the direction of these actions to practices observed in authoritarian states.

Further action against TV Republika: Separate cases, a common question about the limits of pressure

During the same period, tensions surrounding TV Republika were further heightened by law enforcement activity in other proceedings.

On November 12, officers from the Central Bureau for Combating Cybercrime arrived at the broadcaster’s headquarters to carry out investigative measures connected with an inquiry conducted by prosecutors in Szczecin.

The investigation concerned events that had taken place outside the Constitutional Tribunal in October, rather than the Kraków attack itself. Law enforcement authorities demanded the handover of certain materials and documents. TV Republika’s management challenged the justification for these measures and raised concerns about the protection of journalistic materials.

The editorial team at wPolsce24 also reported receiving a similar demand to hand over recordings. The broadcaster refused to provide the materials, citing the advice of its lawyers.

On November 13, TV Republika’s head of news production, Jarosław Olechowski, was charged with unlawful entry in connection with a separate incident involving access to the National Prosecutor’s Office building. Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek defended the prosecutors’ actions, stressing that the law applies to journalists as well. Sakiewicz regarded these developments as further examples of pressure being exerted on the newsroom.

There were also reports of possible further measures to investigate the origins of false alarms, including the potential seizure of the broadcaster’s computers. However, these were reports and concerns raised by TV Republika’s management, not a confirmed decision by law enforcement authorities to hold the newsroom responsible for the alarms.

Nevertheless, the concentration of these developments within such a short period raises legitimate questions about the proportionality of state action, the protection of journalistic confidentiality, and the potential chilling effect on media outlets critical of the government.

November 14: Extended footage raises questions about the fairness of accusations against Sakiewicz

The latest development in the dispute brought new material relevant to assessing the allegations against Tomasz Sakiewicz.

On Friday, November 13, TV Republika released a longer excerpt from its broadcast from Kraków’s Main Market Square. The following day, Niezalezna.pl reported on the footage. The recording includes a statement in which Sakiewicz acknowledges the presence of a plainclothes police officer while maintaining that no police patrol car is visible.

In light of this material, the central question is whether TV Republika’s critics assessed the full broadcast and the actual context of Sakiewicz’s remarks, or focused primarily on its most controversial, selectively extracted fragments.

This is particularly important given that calls for the broadcaster’s licence to be revoked were made on the basis of allegations arising from its coverage.

The bravery of police officers must not end the debate over national security

The Kraków tragedy demonstrated both the heroism of those who worked to save lives and the importance of effective coordination among emergency and security services during a crisis. The two police officers who stopped the armed attacker deserve recognition, as do the municipal guards, paramedics, firefighters, and residents who helped the victims. Their actions, however, should not become an argument against scrutinising command decisions, the deployment of police patrols, or the functioning of the country’s security system.

Journalists have the right to ask questions about these matters. They also have a duty to verify information, correct mistakes, and distinguish established facts from hypotheses. Yet what happened after November 7 went beyond an ordinary debate over journalistic standards.

The tragic deaths of six people were almost immediately drawn into a fierce political confrontation. Instead of a calm reconstruction of events, the public was confronted with accusations, demands to shut down a television station, competing allegations of disinformation, threats, and prosecutorial action.

Meanwhile, the most important questions remain unanswered. Why was such a limited number of officers patrolling the entire Old Town at the time of the attack? Were the security arrangements in the Main Market Square adequate for the level of threat? How quickly did individual patrols reach the locations where the injured victims lay? Did the deployment of officers to Warsaw affect the availability of police resources in Kraków? Who made the key decisions, and on the basis of what information?

Answering these questions requires documents, complete recordings, a precise timeline, and explanations from the relevant authorities — not another battle over short clips taken from television broadcasts.

Six people were killed on the streets of Kraków. Fifteen were injured. The Polish public has the right to know not only who carried out the attack and how the perpetrator was stopped, but also whether everything possible was done to limit the scale of the tragedy. And it has the right to demand those answers, regardless of which television station was the first to ask uncomfortable questions.

Źródło: Republika, PolandDaily24.com

Dziękujemy, że przeczytałaś/eś nasz artykuł do końca.

Bądź na bieżąco! Obserwuj nas w Wiadomościach Google. 

Jesteśmy na Youtube: Bądź z nami na Youtube

Jesteśmy na Facebooku: Bądź z nami na FB

Jesteśmy na platformie X: Bądź z nami na X