Former Hungarian President János Áder has voiced strong opposition to the proposed removal of President Tamás Sulyok, describing it as a “constitutional coup” that would breach Hungary’s constitutional framework. In a podcast discussion, Áder emphasized that political disagreements should not serve as a basis for legal action against the president. He pointed out that according to Hungary’s constitution, a president can only be removed through an impeachment process that requires a two-thirds majority in parliament and evidence of constitutional or legal infractions.
The contentious 17th amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law, if passed, would mandate President Sulyok’s immediate departure from office upon its enactment. Áder criticized this move as sidestepping the established constitutional impeachment process, arguing that it constitutes retroactive legislation, which he deems unconstitutional. He rejected claims that Sulyok’s response to certain political controversies was lacking, categorizing these as political criticisms rather than legal grounds for removal.
Áder cautioned that ousting a president through constitutional amendment rather than through the established legal procedures would undermine the presidency’s legitimacy and weaken the rule of law. He expressed concern that any successor appointed under such circumstances would encounter doubts about their constitutional authority and their ability to represent national unity. Such a scenario, Áder warned, could have far-reaching implications for the country’s governance and legal integrity.
Highlighting the gravity of the situation, Áder argued that the legitimacy of the presidency is at stake. He underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional processes to maintain the rule of law and ensure that political disagreements do not translate into unconstitutional actions. The debate surrounding the proposed amendment reflects broader tensions in Hungary’s political landscape, with potential implications for the balance of power and the preservation of democratic institutions.
In light of these concerns, Áder’s remarks serve as a cautionary note about the potential consequences of bypassing constitutional procedures. He reiterated that political criticisms should be addressed through appropriate channels and not be used to justify actions that could destabilize the country’s constitutional order. The ongoing discussion about the proposed amendment and its potential impact on Hungary’s legal and political framework continues to unfold, drawing significant attention both domestically and internationally.