The credibility of Slovakia’s civilian intelligence agency, the Slovak Information Service (SIS), has come under sustained scrutiny after opposition lawmakers accused its director, Pavol Gašpar — the son of a ruling‑party deputy speaker and indicted former police chief — of politicising national security operations, obstructing parliamentary oversight, and echoing Russian narratives hostile to NATO and the European Union. In a joint appeal, Mária Kolíková of the Freedom and Solidarity party and Zuzana Števulová of Progressive Slovakia alleged that Gašpar’s appointment in 2024 bypassed constitutional procedure, his tenure has blurred lines between intelligence and party politics, and his leadership has weakened cooperation with Western allies, including the Czech Republic. Their statements, supported by evidence of stalled legislative scrutiny, unexplained personal conduct, and initiatives to monitor journalists and online media under the guise of counter‑radicalisation, have intensified fears that the SIS — once central to Slovakia’s democratic oversight architecture — is being reshaped into a politically directed instrument serving the governing coalition’s interests.
Members of the Slovak parliament, Mária Kolíková from the opposition Freedom and Solidarity party (SaS) and Zuzana Števulová from Progressive Slovakia (PS), have raised a series of serious concerns regarding the leadership of Pavol Gašpar, Director of the Slovak Information Service (SIS), the country’s civilian intelligence agency. Both parliamentarians, who serve on the SIS oversight committee, argue that Gašpar’s appointment, conduct, and policy direction have compromised the agency’s credibility, neutrality, and legal obligations.
Pavol Gašpar was appointed as SIS director under circumstances that, according to Mária Kolíková, bypassed standard constitutional procedures. She stated that the appointment ignored the authority of then-President Zuzana Čaputová and instead followed direct intervention by former Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini. Gašpar’s first actions in office also drew criticism. Kolíková recalled that the SIS issued a report during a controversial incident involving a false narrative of an attempted coup, which coincided with the interruption of a parliamentary no-confidence debate against the government. She asserted that this indicated political misuse of intelligence resources.
Concerns were also raised about Gašpar’s professional and personal integrity. Kolíková noted unresolved questions surrounding his personal finances and property holdings, as well as his involvement in a traffic accident, which remains under-investigated. Both parliamentarians pointed to a visible tattoo on Gašpar’s arm depicting a character from The Godfather, which they argued carries inappropriate symbolism for a person holding such a sensitive public office.
Regarding his qualifications, Zuzana Števulová stated that Pavol Gašpar does not meet the standard experience or expertise typically required for leading an intelligence service. She explained that Gašpar, a lawyer by training, has no prior experience in intelligence or high-level management and questioned the legitimacy of his academic credentials. Števulová claimed that his appointment appears to be primarily due to his relationship with his father, Tibor Gašpar, a former police chief who is currently under indictment for corruption-related offences.
Shielding Russia, Silencing Oversight, Dismantling Trust
The ideological orientation of the SIS under Gašpar’s leadership has also been questioned. According to Kolíková, the agency’s most recent annual report reflected Russian-aligned narratives and failed to identify the Russian Federation as a clear security threat, despite evidence of hybrid operations. Gašpar has reportedly compared threats from Western and Russian intelligence services on public television. Both Kolíková and Števulová described his communication as dismissive of NATO and EU partners, citing the removal of their flags from SIS headquarters during a public demonstration and a lack of acknowledgement of Russian involvement in regional bomb threat incidents.
Parliamentary oversight of the SIS has been described as increasingly restricted. Kolíková and Števulová claimed that opposition members of the SIS oversight committee face repeated obstacles to meaningful scrutiny, including limited time for meetings and dismissive or insulting behaviour from Gašpar. They also reported that proposed committee sessions concerning Gašpar’s personal conduct and external leaks were blocked or left unopened. According to Števulová, during one session Gašpar reacted to parliamentary questioning with personal insults, challenging Kolíková’s past role as Minister of Justice.
The director’s relationship with his father, Tibor Gašpar—currently Deputy Speaker of Parliament and under criminal indictment—has further fuelled questions about the impartiality of the SIS. Although both men have denied discussing SIS affairs, Kolíková referenced a televised interview in which Tibor Gašpar claimed to possess inside information about agency operations. Kolíková and Števulová both questioned how Pavol Gašpar obtained a security clearance despite his close familial ties to an indicted figure and noted that the SIS conducts its own internal vetting process.
Števulová also raised concerns about SIS cooperation with international partners. She indicated that while Gašpar reported an unspecified number of meetings with foreign counterparts, no details were provided, and allegations persist—particularly from Czech authorities—that intelligence collaboration has suffered under his leadership. She referred to a specific case involving a representative of the Russian-affiliated outlet Voice of Europe, who was reportedly granted refuge in Slovakia while under Czech sanctions. According to Števulová, the SIS failed to alert the parliamentary committee to this incident until questioned directly.
Other claims relate to Gašpar’s alleged political bias and behaviour toward opposition figures. Števulová and Kolíková stated that Gašpar has repeatedly used his position to make veiled threats and to amplify personal or politically motivated criticisms. They cited examples of him using his public social media accounts to promote unverified claims about opposition leaders and described his behaviour in parliamentary settings as unprofessional and antagonistic.
Further controversy surrounds a proposed SIS-led initiative to identify and categorise media content and social media activity with potential to “radicalise” the population. The project, reportedly developed in cooperation with the Ministry of the Interior and the National Security Analytical Centre, aims to quantify radical content online and attribute it to specific individuals or media outlets. Kolíková described this initiative as concerning, warning that it could be used to monitor or stigmatise critical media voices rather than address genuine security threats.
The discussion also addressed the activities of a nationalist civic association named Brat za brata (“Brother for Brother”), which recently announced the creation of its own “national information service” and claimed to be compiling lists of perceived enemies of the state. Kolíková reported that she submitted a criminal complaint regarding the group’s actions, which included efforts to form paramilitary units. She added that the SIS, despite being in a position to respond to such threats, has not taken decisive action. During committee questioning, Gašpar reportedly declined to provide concrete answers about any measures taken against the group.
According to Števulová, the lack of transparency and oversight raises broader concerns about the possible misuse of intelligence services for political purposes. She referenced reports that members of the ruling coalition and even certain business figures have been targeted for surveillance, adding that the SIS is currently operating without full external controls, including a long-delayed commission responsible for overseeing state wiretapping operations.
In her view, these developments indicate a growing trend of politicisation within the SIS, eroding trust in the institution’s leadership. She cited earlier reports that Slovakia may have sought surveillance technologies similar to Pegasus—used in other European countries to monitor journalists—and expressed concern over future SIS budget allocations. Števulová concluded that in the absence of institutional safeguards, the Slovak intelligence service under Gašpar could be vulnerable to further political abuse.
Spirce: Denník N
