In Slovakia, a judiciary meant to safeguard democracy is instead showing signs of dangerous alignment with Prime Minister Robert Fico’s political agenda. While the Judicial Council swiftly condemns public criticism—such as actor Robert Roth’s satirical protest speech—it remains silent on cases of proven judicial corruption, including the conviction of Judge Richard Molnár. Even as extremist Daniel Bombic avoided detention despite serious charges, the Council’s selective outrage suggests a troubling tolerance for actions that echo Fico’s political narrative. Meanwhile, media outlets face gag orders for calling extremists by their names, signalling an alarming effort to suppress free speech and shield the judiciary from scrutiny. This growing pattern undermines Slovakia’s democratic integrity, raising fears that the nation’s courts are no longer a check on power but a tool of political protection.
Recent cases suggest a troubling pattern of selective sensitivity within Slovakia’s judiciary. While the Judicial Council has reacted swiftly to perceived public attacks on judges, it has remained notably silent in cases of proven judicial corruption. A striking example is the conviction of Judge Richard Molnár for corruption, which failed to provoke any significant response from the Council.
In contrast, when prominent actor Robert Roth delivered a satirical speech at a public protest criticising judicial decisions—particularly the controversial handling of the neo-Nazi extremist Daniel Bombic’s case—the Council condemned his remarks as an attack on judicial independence. This reaction raises questions about whether public criticism is being suppressed to protect the judiciary’s image rather than to uphold justice.
Political Influence and Selective Outrage
The controversy deepened as the Council continued to overlook political interference from Prime Minister Robert Fico, who has repeatedly accused judges and prosecutors of carrying out politically motivated prosecutions against him and his allies. Despite Fico’s consistent attacks on judicial independence, the Council has yet to take a firm stance in defence of its integrity.
At the same time, lenient rulings in cases like Bombic’s—an extremist accused of hate speech and violence—further fuel suspicions of political alignment. The Specialised Criminal Court’s refusal to detain Bombic, despite clear risks of him fleeing the country, has drawn public criticism that the judiciary appears more tolerant toward individuals aligned with Fico’s narrative.
Silencing Public Debate
The judiciary’s selective outrage has extended to media freedom as well. A court order prohibiting the newspaper Denník N from referring to Bombic as a neo-Nazi or extremist was widely condemned as an attack on press freedom. This decision, coupled with the Council’s aggressive stance against public criticism, signals a broader attempt to control public discourse on judicial accountability.
A Threat to Judicial Independence
The pattern is clear: the Judicial Council reacts forcefully to criticism from citizens and the media but stays silent on corruption and political interference. These actions suggest a worrying alignment with Fico’s political interests, undermining the judiciary’s role as an independent guardian of justice.
For Slovakia’s democracy to remain strong, the judiciary must defend its independence not by silencing critics, but by holding its own members accountable and standing firm against political influence.
Source: Matúš Kostolný | Denník N
