Tamás Sulyok’s removal clears an Orbán-era obstacle but intensifies debate over how Hungary should rebuild its democratic institutions
Hungarian President Tamás Sulyok has signed a constitutional amendment that terminates his own mandate, ending a confrontation with Prime Minister Péter Magyar’s new government. The measure forms part of a wider effort to dismantle institutions inherited from Viktor Orbán’s 16 years in power, but human rights organisations and constitutional experts warn that democratic renewal must itself respect legal safeguards.
BUDAPEST — Hungary’s president has signed into law a constitutional amendment that brings his own term in office to an early end, marking an extraordinary new stage in the country’s transition away from the political system built under former prime minister Viktor Orbán.
Tamás Sulyok signed the amendment on Saturday, the final day of the period available to him. His mandate is expected to end at midnight on Monday, after which National Assembly Speaker Ágnes Forsthoffer will temporarily assume the functions of president.
Parliament must then elect a new head of state within 30 days. Hungary’s president is elected by lawmakers rather than by a direct popular vote.
An extraordinary presidential signature
Sulyok, a former president of Hungary’s Constitutional Court, was elected head of state by the then Fidesz-controlled Parliament in 2024. His five-year term was originally due to continue until March 2029.
However, Prime Minister Péter Magyar repeatedly called on Sulyok and other senior officials appointed during the Orbán era to resign after Magyar’s centre-right Tisza party secured a two-thirds parliamentary majority in the April 2026 election.
Magyar accused the president of failing to defend Hungary’s constitutional system during years of democratic decline. Sulyok rejected that criticism, arguing that the presidency should remain above party-political disputes.
When Sulyok declined to step down voluntarily, the new majority amended Hungary’s Fundamental Law to state that the incumbent president’s mandate would end after the provision entered into force.
In a statement explaining his decision, Sulyok said that he had “no constitutional means to challenge this amendment”. He maintained that the measure violated constitutional principles, even though Parliament had adopted it through the legally established procedure.
Refusing to sign, he said, would itself have placed him in breach of his constitutional duty.
Changes reach far beyond the presidency
The seventeenth amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law does considerably more than remove Sulyok.
It introduces a limit of 12 years, or three electoral terms, for members of Parliament. Sitting mandates are not immediately affected, but the restriction could prevent numerous long-serving Fidesz politicians — potentially including Orbán — from standing in future elections.
The amendment also imposes a retirement age of 70 on Constitutional Court judges and reduces future judicial terms from 12 to nine years. The age limit will end the tenure of the court’s president, Péter Polt, and affect several other judges appointed under the previous government.
At the same time, the reform restores some review powers previously removed from the Constitutional Court, changes the procedures for selecting senior judicial officials and establishes a National Asset Recovery and Asset Protection Office. The new body will be responsible for tracing and recovering public assets believed to have been unlawfully handled or transferred.
Magyar presents these measures as necessary to prevent officials loyal to the former government from obstructing democratic and anti-corruption reforms. His administration has also closed the controversial Sovereignty Protection Office and suspended the news service of public television and radio pending restructuring.
These actions form part of the broader reorientation of Hungary’s relationship with the European Union following years of conflict over judicial independence, media freedom, corruption and civil society.
Can democracy be restored through exceptional measures?
The objectives of the reforms — stronger judicial independence, effective anti-corruption controls and the restoration of institutional checks — broadly correspond with changes long requested by European institutions and civil society organisations.
The method used to remove the president, however, has created a difficult rule-of-law question: whether a large electoral mandate permits a government to alter the constitution for the purpose of terminating the mandate of a particular officeholder.
Amnesty International criticised Sulyok for failing to speak out against arbitrary practices under Orbán but concluded that the government’s removal procedure was “not the right approach”. The organisation stressed that Sulyok was entitled to a fair process and legal safeguards.
The European Commission’s rule-of-law demands have focused on judicial independence, anti-corruption protections and fundamental rights. They did not include the removal of the president.
That distinction matters. Democratic reconstruction is not measured only by the institutions a government abolishes or replaces. It is also measured by whether changes are predictable, proportionate and subject to meaningful review.
Orbán and Fidesz have portrayed Sulyok’s removal as evidence that Magyar is replacing one form of concentrated power with another. Orbán warned that if such a measure could be used against the president, other officeholders could also be vulnerable.
Leave a Reply