In a move that has exposed deep rifts within Slovakia’s law enforcement and prosecutorial institutions, the police inspectorate has charged former National Criminal Agency (NAKA) officer Matej Varga with sabotage for allegedly initiating unlawful surveillance of Prosecutor General Maroš Žilinka and his deputy in 2022—amid preparations to prosecute former prime minister and current SMER-SD party leader Robert Fico for operating a criminal network targeting political rivals. The indictment, described by Varga’s legal counsel as politically driven and legally unsustainable, contends that Varga ordered the covert monitoring in a bid to pre-emptively discredit the Prosecutor General’s Office, fearing it might shield Fico from pre-trial detention using Paragraph 363—a controversial provision that allows the Prosecutor General to annul charges without court oversight. Although the operation was swiftly abandoned after Žilinka delegated prosecutorial authority to the Special Prosecutor’s Office, the case—considered the first sabotage charge since the fall of communism—has revived concerns over the politicisation of Slovakia’s security apparatus, the contested use of prosecutorial powers, and the vulnerability of constitutional safeguards in an increasingly polarised political climate.
In July 2024, Slovakia’s law enforcement landscape was thrust into the spotlight following the prosecution of Matej Varga, a former senior officer of the National Criminal Agency (NAKA). The police inspectorate charged him with sabotage, a criminal offence that, according to Slovak law, entails severe penalties when actions are deemed to undermine constitutional order. The case has opened an unprecedented legal debate over the permissible boundaries of police investigations in politically sensitive matters and has exposed significant institutional tensions at the highest levels of law enforcement and the judiciary.
The accusation against Varga centres on his role in 2022 during a politically volatile period when former Prime Minister Robert Fico, then serving as an opposition leader, was under investigation in a case known as “Súmrak.” This case alleged that Fico and close associates orchestrated efforts to misuse law enforcement and tax authorities to discredit political rivals. At the time, Slovak investigators were preparing to bring charges against the former prime minister and discussed whether they could seek pre-trial detention—a move requiring parliamentary approval due to Fico’s status as a member of the National Council.
According to the police inspectorate, Varga unlawfully initiated surveillance-related procedures against Slovakia’s Prosecutor General Maroš Žilinka and his deputy Jozef Kandera without sufficient cause. The accusation suggests that this was done with the intent to interfere in the legal processes involving Fico by pre-emptively undermining the credibility of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The surveillance measures, while reportedly never executed to full extent, involved efforts to track the officials’ office visits and analyse their communication metadata.
Varga’s legal representative, Peter Kubina, dismissed the charges as baseless, calling them “pure fantasy.” He argued that the sabotage charge—reportedly the first of its kind in Slovakia since the fall of communism in 1989—lacked legal merit and would not withstand scrutiny by a court or prosecutor. Kubina also claimed that the accusation represented a politically motivated effort to deliver results aligned with the interests of the Ministry of Interior, currently led by Matúš Šutaj Eštok, a member of the centre-left Hlas party.
How Prosecutors Became Targets in Slovakia’s Most Sensitive Case
The indictment notes that Varga, who previously oversaw NAKA operations in eastern Slovakia, instructed subordinates to initiate a classified operational file titled “Bardejov”—a reference to Žilinka’s birthplace. This file aimed to explore suspicions that Žilinka and Kandera might obstruct legal proceedings against Fico by refusing to request parliamentary approval for his detention. The inspectorate alleged that these suspicions were baseless and that Varga acted without preliminary investigative justification. However, the defence maintains that Varga followed standard procedures outlined in Slovakia’s classified internal policing guidelines.
Statements from several of Varga’s former colleagues have supported the inspectorate’s position, describing the investigative rationale as unfounded. One officer claimed he would have refused the order had it been given to him. Another central witness, who had prepared the initial proposal under Varga’s instruction, recalled discussions about the potential use of surveillance tools, which he rejected due to legal constraints.
The controversy over this operational file intersects with broader concerns about Slovakia’s use of surveillance in political cases. While no actual interception of communications took place, records show that the police attempted to gather data such as security footage and mobile phone identifiers associated with Žilinka, Kandera, and individuals connected to them. The inspectorate interpreted these actions as preparations to deploy advanced monitoring techniques without due cause.
Prosecutors at War: Power Struggles Behind the Legal Curtain
A crucial backdrop to the case was the dispute between two key prosecutorial bodies in Slovakia. The Special Prosecutor’s Office, then led by Daniel Lipšic, was pursuing several high-profile corruption cases involving figures from the former ruling party, Direction–Slovak Social Democracy (SMER-SD). In contrast, the General Prosecutor’s Office, led by Žilinka, drew criticism for repeatedly halting investigations through the use of Paragraph 363 of the Slovak Criminal Procedure Code. This legal provision allows the Prosecutor General to annul charges without court oversight, and was used to terminate investigations against senior political and institutional figures, including Fico.
Public trust in these institutions was further strained by audio recordings made at a hunting lodge in the village of Čifáre, where Fico and allies were overheard discussing their legal strategies and purported links to high-level prosecutors. Although the recordings were not directly cited in the formal indictment, their content reportedly reinforced suspicions within NAKA that the Prosecutor General’s Office might shield Fico from prosecution.
In April 2022, Slovak prosecutors officially charged Fico with leading a criminal group and misusing confidential tax information. At that point, NAKA sought to explore scenarios in which the legal proceedings could be obstructed, including the possibility that the Prosecutor General would not submit the required parliamentary request. This concern appeared to trigger Varga’s directive to begin monitoring Žilinka and Kandera.
Despite initial momentum, the operation was short-lived. On 22 April 2022, Žilinka publicly announced that responsibility for seeking parliamentary approval would rest with the Special Prosecutor’s Office. The investigation into the Prosecutor General was subsequently closed. Parliamentary approval for Fico’s detention ultimately failed by a narrow margin, with two members of the then-governing coalition voting against it. His co-defendant, former interior minister Robert Kaliňák, was detained but later released. He currently serves as Minister of Defence in the governing SMER-SD-led coalition.
The broader institutional fallout from the case has continued. Varga was transferred to a lower-ranking position at the Prešov District Police Directorate, reportedly at financial and personal cost. His wife, also a police officer, was questioned for her involvement in gathering information on Žilinka’s office visitors. Meanwhile, several other officers previously affiliated with NAKA have also faced prosecution or suspension, as political tensions over law enforcement independence intensify.
At the heart of the dispute lies the question of whether law enforcement officials acted within the bounds of legal investigative procedures, or whether political pressure led to the improper use of state resources against perceived institutional rivals. As the legal proceedings continue, the case is being closely watched for its implications on the rule of law and democratic accountability in Slovakia.
