In late June 2026, a significant political debate unfolded in Slovenia as supporters of a referendum against a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigation gathered signatures under the banner of opposing the introduction of a "political police." The campaign, led by figures such as Pavel Gantar, Dušan Keber, and Spomenka Hribar, claimed that the new legislation would enable the majority to dominate the minority and potentially allow intrusive surveillance of citizens' private lives, including their phones and computers. These claims were met with strong opposition from members of the ruling coalition, particularly from the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), who argued that the amendment was aimed at increasing legal protection and efficiency in parliamentary investigations rather than creating a political police force.
The controversy began when the National Assembly approved the amendment to the law on parliamentary investigation at the end of May 2026. The change was supported by the governing coalition, which included the SDS, New Slovenia (NSi), Social Democrats (SLS), and Focus, along with the Respublica party. The amendment sought to limit the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of parliamentary inquiries before the Constitutional Court, thereby reducing potential blockages in the process. It also introduced judicial protection mechanisms, allowing individuals to file complaints within eight days of receiving the final report from a parliamentary commission. This move was intended to streamline the investigative process and prevent misuse of parliamentary powers by the opposition.
Supporters of the referendum, however, painted a very different picture. They argued that the amendment would empower the ruling majority to suppress dissent and engage in arbitrary surveillance of citizens. Prominent activists and former politicians, including members of the Freedom Party (Svoboda) and left-wing groups, joined the campaign, using emotionally charged rhetoric to warn of the dangers posed by the new law. Some even questioned whether the government had already begun implementing invasive practices, citing past incidents involving high-profile figures such as Janez Janša, the long-time leader of the SDS, who was briefly detained ahead of elections in 2014.
The campaign gained momentum after several influential public figures, including television presenter Ana Praznik, publicly endorsed the referendum. In a widely shared video, she stated her support for the initiative, emphasizing her desire to live freely without fear of surveillance or reprisals due to differing opinions. However, her stance drew intense backlash online, with over 500 hostile comments appearing on her social media posts within hours. Despite this, Praznik did not respond to the criticism, stating that her mental peace was worth more than engaging with such negativity.
Meanwhile, the organizers of the referendum faced logistical challenges in collecting the required number of signatures. As of early July 2026, they had gathered around 34,104 signatures, falling short of the 40,000 needed to proceed with the referendum. Reports indicated that some citizens encountered difficulties in submitting their signatures at local administrative offices, with some being told that the system was down or that processing would take longer than expected. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Public Administration confirmed that they had received no formal complaints about these issues, though network disruptions were noted in recent days.
Jelka Godec, the leader of the SDS parliamentary group, took a firm stance against the campaign, arguing that the allegations of a "political police" were baseless and rooted in misinformation. She pointed to specific articles in the amended law, emphasizing that the new provisions were designed to protect citizens' rights rather than infringe upon them. Godec highlighted that the law clearly outlined the scope of parliamentary investigations, which could include public officials, political figures, and private entities where their actions affected the public interest. She criticized opponents of the amendment for spreading fear and confusion among the public, suggesting that such tactics were reminiscent of historical abuses seen in former Yugoslav states.
As the deadline for signature collection approached, the situation remained tense. With just two weeks remaining until the July 14 cutoff date, the organizers of the referendum needed to gather approximately 14,400 additional signatures. Whether they would succeed in meeting this target remains uncertain, but the debate surrounding the amendment has undoubtedly sparked a broader discussion about the balance between governmental oversight and individual freedoms in Slovenia's democratic framework.
4 reports
VečerIndependent🔒CenterFactual 85Objective 70yesterdayThe article discusses difficulties encountered by supporters of a referendum on a proposed amendment to Slovenia's law on parliamentary investigations. According to the initiative 'Proti politični policiji,' some citizens faced delays at local administrative units when attempting to submit signatures for the referendum. Some were reportedly told that submissions could not be processed due to system issues. The collection of signatures began on June 10 and was expected to end on July 14, with the group having collected 34,104 signatures out of the required 40,000. The proposed amendment, passed by the National Assembly in late May, would limit individuals under investigation from challenging decisions before the Constitutional Court and prevent the National Assembly from initiating new investigations into the same matter after issuing a final report.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the challenges faced by the referendum organizers and the content of the proposed legal amendment without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from the initiative representatives and mentions the official stance of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 70): Factual accuracy is high as it reports on the challenges faced during signature collection for the referendum, including technical issues at local offices and the current count of signatures. However, the article presents the issue from the perspective of the campaign against the law change, potenti
DemokracijaParty-alignedCenterFactual 85Objective 60yesterdayThe article discusses proposed changes to Slovenia's parliamentary investigation law, which aim to limit blockages during investigations and strengthen oversight by the opposition. The amendments were passed by the National Assembly at the end of May 2026, supported by a coalition including SDS, NSi, SLS, Fokus, and Respublika. Critics, including activists from the left-wing parties such as Svoboda and Levica, argue that the new law enables the majority to abuse power and threatens journalists and civil society. Opponents are collecting signatures for a referendum under the misleading campaign title 'Against Political Police,' aiming to challenge the amended law. As of late June 2026, they had gathered around 25,602 verified signatures out of the required 40,000, but the campaign has slowed down recently.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—supporters of the legal changes who claim they improve efficiency and prevent constitutional challenges, and opponents who criticize them as enabling political abuse. It does not favor one side through loaded language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 60): This article explains the legal changes and their implications, citing sources and providing context. It mentions both supporters and critics of the law change. While factual content is solid, the tone suggests a leaning toward the opposition's view, reducing objectivity.
Nova24TVParty-alignedRightFactual 80Objective 652 days agoThe article discusses the controversy surrounding a proposed amendment to Slovenia’s law on parliamentary investigations, which has sparked a referendum campaign led by figures such as Pavel Gantar, Dušan Keber, and Spomenka Hribar. The campaigners claim the amendment would establish a 'political police' by allowing investigations into individuals’ communications and devices, allegedly violating citizens' rights. However, Jelka Godec, an SDS MP, refutes these claims by citing specific legal provisions, emphasizing that the law targets public officials, politicians, and entities linked to public interests, not ordinary citizens. She criticizes opponents of the amendment for spreading misinformation and failing to provide concrete legal references. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Robert Golob and other influential figures have actively promoted the referendum, using emotionally charged rhetoric to encourage public support.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the debate around the proposed law as a defense of legal clarity and parliamentary oversight against exaggerated fears of surveillance. It emphasizes the legal framework provided by the law and critiques opponents for spreading misinformation, aligning more closely with the pro-am
Why these scores (Factual 80 · Objective 65): The article provides factual information about the number of signatures collected and mentions the involvement of political figures like Robert Golob. It includes quotes from politicians but leans towards supporting the anti-political police narrative. Factuality is good, but objectivity is compromi
Žurnal24IndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 55yesterdayTelevizijska voditeljica Ana Praznik je javno pojasnila, da je podpisala zahtevo za razpis referenduma 'proti politični policiji', saj si želi živeti svobodno in brez strahu pred posledicami zaradi drugačnega mnenja. Po objavi njenega videoposnetka so se pojavili več kot 500 žaljivih in vulgarnih komentarjev na družbenih omrežjih. Praznik je poudarila, da ne želi reagirati na takšne komentarje in da jih ni prijavila, saj ji je duševni mir vreden več. Zavod Center za informiranje, sodelovanje in razvoj nevladnih organizacij (CNVOS) je takšne komentarje obsodil in pozval k strpnejšemu javnemu dialogu.
Bias read (Center): The article presents Ana Praznik's statement supporting a referendum against 'political police' and describes the backlash she received online. It includes her response to the negative comments and a statement from CNVOS condemning online harassment. The article does not exhibit clear bias toward a
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 55): The article focuses heavily on Ana Praznik's personal experience and the backlash she received, which may not represent the broader context of the referendum. The emphasis on emotional reactions reduces objectivity. Factuality is moderate as it reports on her actions and public response.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Slovenia
