Chief Ukoma Jeretic has angered the judges.

The head of Slovenia’s government communications office has drawn sharp criticism for describing the judiciary as a breeding ground for corruption and calling for its “democratic deratization.” Sebastjan Jeretič, director of the Government Communications Office, posted these remarks on social media platform X on Tuesday. This occurred on the same day the National Assembly rejected the parliamentary majority’s proposal to appoint Boris Gabriel Hrovat as a Supreme Court judge. Jeretiç stated that the independent branch of power had become corrupt because there was nothing above it but blue sky. He shared a report from the portal Info360 alongside his post. That report noted Hrovat served on a panel at the Ljubljana Higher Court in 2022. The panel ordered detention against journalist Bojan Požar, a decision later invalidated by the Supreme Court. Former owners of the newspaper Večer had sued Požar over an article about them, alleging defamatory accusations. The Judicial Council, which proposes candidates for judicial positions, responded with concern to Jeretić’s statement. In a written reply, the council emphasized that the principle of separation of powers requires mutual respect among all three branches of government, even when they disagree with each other's decisions. They asserted 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 harshly. While acknowledging that the judiciary must accept sharp and unpleasant criticism, the council drew a fundamental distinction between such critique and rhetoric that dehumanizes holders of judicial office. They warned that history teaches that language labeling people as harmful pests to be removed is never innocent. The council called on representatives of other branches of power to act to protect the judiciary. Jeretić acknowledged in response that his statement was harsh and provocative. However, he maintained that judicial autonomy also demands accountability. He told the Slovenian Press Agency that self-cleansing of errors does not exist and politics should not interfere. He argued that this vicious circle must be broken. Political opposition parties reacted with outrage to the comments. Leaders from the Freedom party, Social Democrats, and Left party condemned the statements as inappropriate for representatives of the executive branch and government agencies. They argued the remarks reveal the ruling coalition’s attitude toward the judiciary. Robert Golob, leader of the Freedom party, described labeling judges as rats as unprecedented, noting it did not occur even under previous systems characterized as iron and lead. He accused the Slovenian Democratic Party of weakening the judiciary whenever it held power, citing the failure to appoint prosecutors during the third Janez Janša government. Golob suggested that voters might need to reject political justice through a referendum, stating that the current direction leads there. Luka Goršek, vice-president and member of parliament for the Social Democrats, assessed that the ruling coalition aims to force the judiciary to kneel before them. He warned that right-wing politics feeling like judges of who is suitable for judicial roles has led to chaos in the judiciary in countries like Hungary and Serbia. Asta Vrečko, co-coordinator and head of MPs for the Left party, called the remark a bottom of political incivility. She accused the ruling coalition of cutting down state systems that do not suit them. She stressed that her party advocates removing politics from judicial appointments and criticized personal vendettas as motivations for recent actions. Criminal law specialist Blaž Kovačič Mlinar also weighed in on the controversy. He noted that while everything is not perfect in the judiciary, the term “deratization” was frequently used by Nazis regarding Jews. He deemed it highly inappropriate for a government representative to use such language. The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and judicial branches in Slovenia. It follows earlier controversies involving government communication policies. Previously, Jeretić spoke about a culture of dialogue that must be respectful, correct, and reasonable. This was when the Government Communications Office unblocked access for followers who had been banned due to past inappropriate posts. At that time, the government stated official profiles must remain open to citizens and their voices, even critical ones. They believed open dialogue is the foundation of democratic society and pledged not to block users in the current mandate while encouraging responsible communication. The current dispute centers on whether such aggressive rhetoric crosses the line into undermining institutional independence. The rejection of Hrovat’s appointment serves as the immediate trigger for the exchange. Sources indicate the parliamentary majority pushed for the appointment despite opposition concerns. The specific legal history of Hrovat’s involvement in the Požar case provides context for the criticism leveled at him. The former newspaper owners alleged the article contained defamatory accusations against them. The higher court initially supported their claim by ordering detention, but the supreme court reversed this measure. These procedural details were highlighted in the report shared by Jeretić. The reaction from the judicial establishment focuses heavily on the tone and historical connotations of the chosen vocabulary. They argue that while criticism is part of democracy, dehumanizing language threatens the rule of law. Political figures frame the issue as part of a broader pattern of interference. They point to past failures in judicial appointments as evidence of systemic bias. The debate continues to unfold with calls for protection of judicial integrity from both sides of the political spectrum. The core conflict lies in the interpretation of accountability versus independence within the tripartite system of governance. Each side cites constitutional principles to support their position. The executive argues for transparency and responsibility in judicial conduct. The judiciary asserts its role as a check on other powers and a protector of citizen rights. The use of specific terminology has intensified the dispute beyond standard policy disagreements. Observers note the sensitivity of comparing modern institutions to historical atrocities. The response from legal experts underscores the gravity of the linguistic choice made by the government official. The situation reflects deeper structural challenges in maintaining balance between branches of government. Public discourse remains heated with multiple stakeholders issuing formal statements. The outcome of the Hrovat appointment process remains unresolved following the vote. Further steps in the nomination procedure have not been detailed in the available reports. The focus currently remains on the rhetorical clash and its implications for institutional trust.