President Čaputová, speaking on February 16, announces her strategy for challenging the controversial changes to the Criminal Code. (source: FB Zuzana Čaputová)
President Zuzana Čaputová has decided not to veto the government's contentious Criminal Code amendment, opting instead to sign it and allow time for a constitutional challenge. Her move aims to provide constitutional judges ample time to assess the law before it comes into effect on March 15.
The more conventional approach by a dissenting president would be to veto the law, but that would allow the ruling coalition to time a vote to override her veto – for which it has the numbers in parliament – until the last minute, thus allowing no opportunity for meaningful appeal. Instead, Čaputová has chosen to bet on a constitutional review.
The governing coalition, comprising Smer, Hlas and the Slovak National Party (SNS), introduced the amendment, which has faced widespread criticism for abolishing the Special Prosecutor's Office, reducing penalties for financial crimes, and shortening the statute of limitations for offences including rape.
Controversial legislation under review
The president emphasised the importance of a proper legislative process for changes, such as shortening the statute of limitations in cases of rape, that result in serious consequences. The coalition's amendment was rushed through parliament without expert input or public consultation using what is known as a fast-tracked procedure. The changes, and the manner of their passing, garnered international criticism and massive public protests across Slovakia.
Čaputová's decision allows for a constitutional review, offering an opportunity to address concerns before the law becomes effective. If the legislation's numerous changes to statutes of limitations were to come into effect for even one day they would irrevocably affect – and in many cases, effectively end – a large number of ongoing criminal cases.
The presidential office has already prepared submissions to the Constitutional Court challenging the law change. The submissions primarily address the rushed approach used by the government to pass the law, for which, the president argues, there was no legal reason.
