How Fico Moved Against Slovakia’s Anti-Corruption Watchdog and Met Resistance

The government of Robert Fico has launched a reform that would dismantle one of Slovakia’s most effective anti-corruption safeguards.

Under the proposed changes, the Whistleblower Protection Office would be dissolved and replaced by a new structure whose leadership is appointed directly by the government.

Officials describe the move as administrative optimisation. Critics, legal experts, and EU institutions see something else entirely: a calculated attempt to neutralise an independent body that has repeatedly stood in the way of political power.

A System That Was Working Too Well

Slovakia introduced whistleblower protection legislation in 2014, but the system remained largely symbolic for years. That changed after the 2019 law created a dedicated authority and, crucially, after the Whistleblower Protection Office, known by its Slovak acronym ÚOO, began operating in 2021.

Following the transposition of EU Directive 2019/1937, the updated 2023 framework gave whistleblowers tangible rights. Protection applied not only to breaches of EU law but also to behaviour that harmed the public interest or crossed ethical lines at work.

The burden of proof shifted to employers, a detail that quietly terrified parts of the political and business establishment.

According to Whistleblower Network International, public awareness of the Office rose sharply, from 11 per cent in 2022 to 28 per cent in 2025.

Willingness to report wrongdoing climbed from 61 per cent to 71 per cent. Those numbers translate into cases, investigations, and uncomfortable questions.

Why Change It Now?

The official explanation is procedural. The government argues that crime victims deserve clearer protection rules and that employers should be allowed to appeal whistleblower protection decisions.

On paper, it sounds reasonable. In practice, it strips the Office of its independence and places control in political hands.

The unofficial explanation is more personal and more revealing.

Revenge, Fines, and a Targeted Office Head

The conflict escalated after Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok dismissed investigators working on sensitive cases linked to Prime Minister Fico’s circle.

These officers held whistleblower status and were protected by the Special Prosecutor’s Office, yet they were fired without consulting the Whistleblower Protection Office.

That consultation was not optional. It was the law.

Under the leadership of Zuzana Dlugoszová, the Office responded by fining the Interior Ministry three times in 2024 and 2025, for a total of €114,000. The message was blunt: even ministries must respect whistleblower rights.

Shortly afterwards, legislation appeared that would abolish the Office altogether. The coincidence convinced few observers.

Speed, Silence, and Institutional Alarm Bells

On November 22, at an extraordinary cabinet meeting, the Slovak government decided to liquidate the Whistleblower Protection Office as of March 1, 2026. Several ministers later admitted they had not known the issue would even be discussed that day.

On December 9, parliament approved a bill to relaunch the office in a new, government-controlled form under an expedited procedure. Legal experts immediately warned that key elements conflicted with EU law. The European Commission flagged concerns about independence and compliance with Directive 2019/1937.

President Peter Pellegrini vetoed the law on December 11, citing the lack of justification for fast tracking and the risk of damaging relations with Brussels. A day later, the governing coalition overrode the veto, pushing the bill back to the president for signature.

Streets, Courts, and an Unexpected Pause

The political gamble triggered a public backlash. Thousands of Slovaks took to the streets across the country, protesting what they saw as a direct assault on anti-corruption safeguards and democratic norms.

The demonstrations were noisy, emotional, and, at moments, raw. Then came the institutional counterattack.

Following a constitutional complaint filed by opposition MPs and supported by the ombudsman, the Constitutional Court of Slovakia suspended the law. The reform is now frozen pending a full review of its legality.

For the first time in weeks, Fico’s government lost control of the timeline.

What This Fight Really Signals

This is not just a dispute over administrative design. It is a test of whether independent oversight bodies can survive in a political climate increasingly hostile to constraints on power. If the Whistleblower Protection Office falls, other institutions will take note, quietly, nervously.

The resistance from courts, the president, civil society, and the streets suggests that Slovakia’s democratic immune system is still functioning. How long it holds is another question.