The Slovak government has embraced Daniel Bombic, an extremist known for spreading neo-Nazi propaganda, hate speech, and harassment, despite international arrest warrants and mounting evidence of his dangerous activities. Instead of facing justice, he was flown to Slovakia aboard a government jet and released without restrictions, raising serious concerns over political interference in the judiciary. Prime Minister Robert Fico and top officials have not only shielded him from prosecution but have also appeared on his extremist platform, legitimising his rhetoric. Meanwhile, a Bratislava court has banned the media from calling him an extremist—despite overwhelming evidence—further suppressing press freedom and exposing deep cracks in Slovakia’s democratic foundations. Bombic continues to target journalists, activists, and minorities with state-backed impunity, while legal experts warn that his case symbolises the country’s descent into authoritarianism.
Daniel Bombic, notorious for his aggressive online behaviour, has been charged with extremism yet remains largely unrestricted in his activities. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the Slovak judiciary granted him freedom under minimal conditions, imposing only a ban on international travel and a requirement to report to authorities once a month. Crucially, he was not prohibited from continuing to operate his online platforms, where he has previously engaged in harassment and disseminated hate speech. The responsibility of determining whether his content is hateful now rests with a probation officer, raising concerns about enforcement and the judiciary’s handling of extremist threats. Critics argue that this leniency not only weakens the legal system’s credibility but also emboldens others who share Bombic’s views.
Instead of facing political isolation, Bombic has been welcomed into the mainstream by the ruling Smer party. Shortly after the court ruling, he appeared on Král na ťahu, a political talk show on TA3, as an official guest of Smer politicians Tibor Gašpar and Richard Takáč. The broadcaster later confirmed that political parties themselves select guests for the programme, leaving little doubt that Bombic’s presence was not incidental but a deliberate move by Smer. This endorsement directly contradicts Smer’s previous claims of being an anti-fascist party, calling into question its ideological stance and political strategy. By associating with a figure who openly praises neo-Nazi figures and espouses anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, the party risks further radicalising Slovakia’s political landscape and alienating moderate voters.
The judicial handling of Bombic’s case has sparked further controversy. While he was released under minimal conditions, British authorities had previously deemed him dangerous enough to be monitored with an ankle bracelet before his extradition. His transfer from the UK to Slovakia was also highly irregular—rather than being transported under standard police escort, he was flown aboard a Slovak government jet. This extraordinary arrangement, typically reserved for high-ranking officials or critical diplomatic missions, fuelled speculation of political favouritism. His release was overseen by Judge Peter Pulman, who has a history of rulings favourable to allies of Prime Minister Robert Fico, further reinforcing concerns about judicial independence and political interference.
Historical Revisionism and the Normalisation of Extremism
Bombic’s extremist rhetoric extends beyond Slovakia’s present political climate to historical revisionism. He has publicly celebrated the anniversary of the Slovak wartime fascist state and dismissed the Slovak National Uprising—one of the country’s most significant anti-Nazi resistance efforts—as a “Jewish conspiracy.” Such statements align with his past admiration for neo-Nazi figures and further illustrate the gravity of his ideological position. In a country where the memory of fascism remains a sensitive issue, his views are not merely inflammatory but deeply troubling. The ruling party’s decision to associate with him suggests either an alarming ideological shift or a strategic calculation that extremist support is worth courting.
Beyond the political implications, Bombic’s influence extends into the legal sphere. A Bratislava court recently ruled that Denník N, a major Slovak newspaper, is prohibited from referring to Bombic as a neo-Nazi, extremist, or antisemite—despite extensive evidence of his hate speech and associations with far-right groups. The decision was issued without the newspaper being notified or given the opportunity to present counterarguments, violating due process principles. Prominent legal experts, including former Constitutional Court President Ján Mazák, criticised the ruling as a serious blow to press freedom and an attempt to shield extremist figures from scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Chair of the Judicial Council accused Denník N of inciting hostility against the judiciary, framing the controversy as a media attack rather than a legitimate concern over democratic backsliding.
The government’s involvement in Bombic’s case does not end with his court battles. Several high-ranking officials—including Defence Minister Robert Kaliňák, Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok, and even Prime Minister Robert Fico himself—have appeared on Bombic’s online platforms, granting legitimacy to his extremist views. His podcast, which has been banned from major social media platforms due to its promotion of hate speech, continues to serve as a hub for far-right propaganda, hosting key figures within the ruling coalition. Bombic’s ties to Slovakia’s leadership extend to his legal team, which includes David Lindtner, a close advisor to Fico and a partner in Kaliňák’s law firm. These connections reinforce concerns that Bombic enjoys protection from prosecution due to his political affiliations.
His influence has already had tangible consequences. Over the years, Bombic has engaged in sustained harassment campaigns against journalists, activists, and public officials, frequently publishing their private information (doxing) to incite targeted abuse. Prominent Slovak journalist Zuzana Kovačič Hanzelová has been one of his main targets, facing a barrage of misogynistic slurs, fabricated rumours about her personal life, and even threats against her child. Human rights organisations report that Bombic’s return to Slovakia has increased fear among those he has targeted, with many seeking protection from authorities.
The Slovak government’s handling of this case is increasingly viewed as a symptom of broader democratic backsliding. The leniency shown by the judiciary, coupled with the ruling party’s willingness to embrace radical figures, underscores a worrying trend in which extremist narratives are not only tolerated but actively promoted. While Prime Minister Robert Fico has long been known for his confrontational political style, his party’s alignment with individuals like Bombic suggests a deeper shift that could have lasting consequences for Slovakia’s democratic integrity.
As the country navigates these challenges, the government’s stance on extremism will serve as a key test of its commitment to democratic values. If figures like Bombic continue to gain influence under political patronage, Slovakia risks drifting towards the model of other European nations where far-right ideologies have infiltrated mainstream politics. Whether this trajectory can be reversed will depend on the willingness of democratic institutions, civil society, and the electorate to push back against the forces seeking to undermine them.
