Luka Martin Tomažić: The good intentions of the authorities are not a guarantee for the future or for good solutions

The Judicial Council issued a formal statement on Wednesday expressing deep concern over remarks made by government officials regarding the independence of the judiciary. The reaction followed comments posted on Tuesday by Sebastjan Jeretic, director of the Government Communication Office, who described the judicial branch as a breeding ground for corruption. Jeretic stated on the social media platform X that a democratic de-rattification of this independent branch was necessary because it had become corrupt due to a lack of oversight. His posts coincided with the National Assembly’s rejection of Boris Gabriel Hrovat’s nomination for the position of supreme court judge. Jeretic shared an article from the portal Info360 alongside his critical remarks. The article noted that Hrovat served on a panel at the Ljubljana Higher Court in 2022. That panel ordered preventive detention against journalist Bojan Pozhar. The Supreme Court later invalidated that decision. Former owners of the newspaper Vecer had sued Pozhar over an article concerning them, alleging defamatory accusations. The Judicial Council, which proposes candidates for judicial positions, responded in writing to Jeretic’s statements. They emphasized that the principle of separation of powers requires each branch to respect the other two, even when disagreeing with their decisions. The council argued that an independent judiciary is not a privilege for judges but a guarantee of rights for all citizens, including those who criticize the courts most sharply. While acknowledging that the judiciary must accept harsh criticism, the council drew a distinction between such critique and rhetoric that dehumanizes judicial officeholders. They warned that history shows language labeling individuals as pests to be removed is never innocent. The council called on representatives of other branches of power to act to protect the judiciary. Jeretic acknowledged in a response that his statement was sharp and provocative. However, he maintained that judicial autonomy demands accountability. He told the Slovenian Press Agency that there is no self-cleansing of errors and that politics should not intervene. He stated that this vicious circle must be broken. Political opposition parties reacted with outrage to Jeretic’s comments. Leaders from the Freedom party, Social Democrats, and Left party deemed such statements by executive branch representatives inappropriate. They argued the remarks reveal the ruling coalition’s attitude toward the judiciary. Robert Golob, head of the Freedom party, commented during a session in the National Assembly. He described labeling judges as rats as unprecedented, noting it did not occur under previous systems characterized as iron and lead. Golob accused the Slovenian Democratic Party of weakening the judiciary whenever it held power. He recalled the failure to appoint prosecutors during the third Janez Jansa government. He suggested that citizens might need to vote again in a referendum to reject political justice, stating that the current direction leads there. Luka Gorsek, vice-president of the Social Democrats and a member of parliament, assessed that the ruling coalition aims to force the judiciary to kneel before them. He warned that right-wing politics feels entitled to decide who is suitable for judicial roles. He cited Hungary and Serbia as examples where similar dynamics have led to the collapse of judicial integrity. Asta Vrecko, co-coordinator of the Left party, said Jeretic’s statement represents the bottom of political incivility. She criticized the ruling coalition for cutting through state systems that do not suit them like salami. She affirmed her party’s stance against political interference in judicial appointments. She added that personal vendettas cannot be the reason for such actions. She described the current situation as a war of inappropriate communication. Legal scholar Luka Martin Tomazic offered analysis on the broader implications of removing legal safeguards. He argued that the main danger lies in laws removing protections that exist because long-term trust in the pure intentions of the state is impossible. If an independent judge does not lead preliminary proceedings, but a prosecutor acts as both investigator and opponent, equality of arms is destroyed. He dismissed arguments for efficiency as misleading, suggesting safeguards are removed because they appear to hinder desired outcomes. Tomazic noted this is not the first instance of such ideas. Similar concepts appeared under previous governments seeking to restrict freedom of expression. A strategic council proposed expanding criminal offenses to include causing public excitement and horror. Parallel efforts pursued stricter legislation at the misdemeanor level and in media law. Political discourse consistently circulated the idea of curbing false news. In these cases, there was a tendency to declare a safeguard a gap, then fill that gap to prevent social externalities while ignoring new dangers created. Tomazic observed that all these interventions share the assumption that safeguards are excessive because intentions are pure, and pure because they belong to one side. He stressed that the key issue is whether society can forget why safeguards exist in the first place. Safeguards exist because good intentions of authorities are not a guarantee for the future or for good solutions. One side believes no one would arrest them for verbal offenses because they do not spread false news. The other side believes no one will knock on their door at night with false corruption charges if legal safeguards are removed. Both sides calculate that the sword has only one edge. Tomazic concluded that they are deeply mistaken in this assessment.