The Hungarian parliament enacted a constitutional amendment on Monday aimed at removing President Tamás Sulyok from office. This legislative move is a central component of Prime Minister Péter Magyar’s strategy—termed “purgatorium”—to dismantle the political legacy of his predecessor, Viktor Orbán.
This development represents the first major political challenge for Magyar’s Tisza Party following its landslide victory in the April elections.
Magyar, who has repeatedly called for the 70-year-old president to resign, has labeled Sulyok a “puppet” of the former government. The Prime Minister’s agenda involves a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's political system, which he characterizes as a regime change rather than a simple change of government.
Central to his criticisms are claims that Sulyok failed to uphold his constitutional duties by not opposing Orbán’s divisive rhetoric or protecting opposition figures allegedly targeted by secret service operations during the campaign.
“He should have defended constitutionality when one of its most important foundations was at risk,” Magyar stated, adding that the secret service must not function as a private army for any political party.
Legal expert Tamás Lattmann noted that the ruling party is also concerned about the president's power to pardon convicted individuals. “If they want to initiate criminal proceedings against key figures from the previous government, there is a risk the president could pardon those people and prevent impeachment,” he said.
Lattmann also pointed out that Sulyok is viewed as a symbol of the Orbán regime, making him a legitimate target for the current administration.
President Sulyok has categorically refused to resign, warning that the move could trigger a constitutional crisis and describing the parliamentary action as a threat to democracy. “The question is whether this force will sweep away internationally recognised and accepted principles of the rule of law, as well as genuine representative democracy,” Sulyok said in a statement on Sunday.
Fidesz, the party that originally appointed Sulyok, has condemned the removal attempt as a step toward “tyranny,” with Viktor Orbán vowing that Hungary has the right to resist such a move. Sulyok maintains that there is no constitutional basis for his removal, arguing that the amendment is aimed at a single individual and therefore undermines the separation of powers.
Following Monday's vote, Sulyok has a five-day window to decide whether to sign the amendment. Should he sign it, the amendment will enter into force and he will lose his job. If he refuses, the parliament intends to initiate impeachment proceedings, alleging a failure to fulfill constitutional duties and asking the Constitutional Court to revoke his mandate.
Lattmann warned that this is a risky strategy, as the Constitutional Court still holds a Fidesz-appointed majority and might find that any breach of the constitution is not severe enough to justify removal. In that scenario, the court could leave Sulyok in office despite finding that he acted unconstitutionally.
Lattmann also questioned the legality of plans to temporarily replace the president with the speaker of parliament, noting that under Hungarian law, this is only permitted when the president is unable to carry out his duties.
He argued that refusing to sign legislation does not automatically mean the president is unable to perform the functions of the office. Sulyok could argue he is fit for office, even if the prime minister does not want him.
Despite the resistance, the Tisza Party emphasizes that the move was a key election pledge supported by the public. A May poll from the 21 Research Centre indicated that 67% of Hungarian voters favor Sulyok's removal.
While the European Commission is monitoring the situation, EU Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath noted in June that personnel changes are often inevitable during major political shifts.
Meanwhile, nearly 50 MEPs have urged the European Commission to address the situation with urgency. Sulyok has requested an opinion from the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's constitutional advisory body, which is expected to discuss the matter in October.
Yes, essentially by saying he will not be ousted.
