In a democracy built on the memory of its own collapse, Germany now confronts a structural flaw it long trusted tradition to conceal: state prosecutors answer not to the law alone, but to the ministries that employ them. With the far-right AfD poised to govern Saxony-Anhalt for the first time, judges and legal scholars are warning that the informal norms of restraint which have kept this power from being weaponized may not survive contact with a party that views the constitutional order itself as an adversary. The question Germany faces is whether a republic can afford to leave its safeguards
German judges warn of justice system vulnerabilities as far-right AfD gains power
The tradition can be abandoned at any time and offers no protection
Mark
So the worry is that if the AfD takes over a state government, they could tell prosecutors what cases to pursue and which to drop?
Mimi
Exactly. The Interior Ministry already has that power legally. The question is whether a far-right government would use it to protect its own people or go after its enemies.
Luke
But wait—the source says there's a "political tradition of self-restraint." Has that tradition ever actually been broken before?
Mimi
There's the 2015 example with Heiko Maas and the federal prosecutor. He ordered a report withdrawn. It's contested whether that was a directive, but it happened.
Mark
And there's no law that would have stopped him?
Mimi
No. The law says prosecutors can't follow unlawful directives, but there's no definition of what makes a directive unlawful, and no transparency requirement.
Luke
So the safeguard is basically that the ministry won't abuse its own power. That's not really a safeguard.
Mimi
Right. Which is why judges are asking for either independence or at minimum transparency—so lawyers can challenge directives in court.
Mark
What does the government say about this?
Mimi
They say the current system is fine and that keeping prosecutors in the executive branch ensures democratic accountability.
Luke
But the European Court of Justice already flagged this as a problem with arrest warrants, didn't it?
Mimi
Yes, in 2019. Though Germany's system actually protects civil liberties more than most European countries—only judges can issue arrest warrants here.
Mark
So the structure isn't inherently bad, it just depends on who's in charge.
Mimi
Precisely. And that's the problem. The law doesn't protect against a government that decides to abandon restraint.
The Pulse
- The AfD's imminent takeover of Saxony-Anhalt has transformed a long-dormant legal vulnerability into an active threat, as the party classified by German intelligence as hostile to the constitutional order prepares to control the ministry that oversees state prosecutors.
- Germany's prosecution system contains no legal firewall against political interference — Interior Ministries can direct, halt, or redirect individual criminal cases without any requirement for public documentation or justification.
- Judges and prosecutors are sounding alarms with unusual urgency, drawing direct comparisons to Poland and Hungary, where similar institutional weaknesses were exploited to dismantle judicial independence once populist governments took power.
- Reformers are divided between two remedies: stripping ministries of their directive power entirely to create genuine prosecutorial independence, or mandating transparency so that directives become visible to courts and defense lawyers.
- The federal government has so far defended the status quo, insisting existing safeguards are adequate — a position that critics argue mistakes political tradition for legal protection.
In a democracy built on the memory of its own collapse, Germany now confronts a structural flaw it long trusted tradition to conceal: state prosecutors answer not to the law alone, but to the ministries that employ them. With the far-right AfD poised to govern Saxony-Anhalt for the first time, judges and legal scholars are warning that the informal norms of restraint which have kept this power from being weaponized may not survive contact with a party that views the constitutional order itself as an adversary. The question Germany faces is whether a republic can afford to leave its safeguards unwritten when those who might abandon them are already at the door.
Germany's judicial system harbors a structural vulnerability that has suddenly become urgent. The AfD, classified by domestic intelligence as a threat to the constitutional democratic order, is set to govern Saxony-Anhalt after a decisive September election — the first time the party will control a German state. Judges and prosecutors across the country are alarmed, because the legal architecture itself offers no reliable protection against political abuse of the prosecution system.
Unlike in many democracies, Germany's state prosecutors operate within the executive branch, answering to Interior Ministries that retain the power to issue directives in individual criminal cases — ordering investigations pursued or dropped, without public documentation or oversight. The Deutscher Richterbund, the official judges' association, has called for federal reform before the AfD can exploit this power. "While there is a political tradition of self-restraint," said executive director Sven Rebehn, "this tradition can be abandoned at any time and offers no effective protection."
The fear is grounded in recent European history. Berlin's state prosecutor Margarete Koppers has drawn a direct line to Poland and Hungary, where far-right governments systematically dismantled judicial independence using precisely these kinds of structural openings. A precedent exists in Germany itself: in 2015, federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas issued a directive forcing the federal prosecutor to withdraw a report on compromised state secrets, then dismissed the prosecutor who resisted. No law prevented it. No mechanism required public justification.
Reformers disagree on the remedy. The Richterbund and Koppers want to remove ministerial directive power entirely. Hamburg criminal lawyer Gül Pinar, who testified before the Bundestag on the issue, argues for a narrower fix: mandatory transparency, so that directives become visible to defense lawyers and subject to judicial scrutiny. She resists full independence on democratic grounds, noting that executive-branch prosecutors remain subject to parliamentary accountability in ways that fully independent ones would not.
The federal government has shown no appetite for change, defending the current system as adequately safeguarded. That position is increasingly difficult to sustain. Germany's system functions on the assumption that those in power will restrain themselves. With the AfD preparing to take control of a state Interior Ministry, that assumption is about to be tested in earnest.
Germany's judicial system faces a structural vulnerability that has suddenly become urgent. The far-right Alternative for Germany party, known as the AfD, is poised to take control of Saxony-Anhalt after a decisive election victory in early September—the first time the party will govern a German state. This prospect has alarmed judges and prosecutors across the country, who warn that the legal architecture itself contains no reliable safeguards against political abuse of the prosecution system.
The concern is not theoretical. Germany's state prosecutors, unlike their counterparts in many democracies, operate as part of the executive branch rather than as an independent institution. They answer to state and federal Interior Ministries, which retain the power to issue directives in individual criminal cases. A ministry can order a prosecutor to pursue a line of investigation, drop one, or withhold evidence—all without public documentation or meaningful oversight. The Deutscher Richterbund, the official association of German judges, has called on the federal government to reform these laws before the AfD gains the ability to weaponize them. "Currently, the law allows state justice ministries to interfere even in individual criminal proceedings," said Sven Rebehn, the association's executive director. "While there is a political tradition of self-restraint when issuing directives to prosecutors, this tradition can be abandoned at any time and offers no effective protection."
The fear is specific and grounded in recent European history. If the AfD controls Saxony-Anhalt's Interior Ministry, it could theoretically direct prosecutors to abandon cases against right-wing extremists or to pursue cases against the party's political opponents. The AfD is classified by German domestic intelligence as a threat to the constitutional democratic order. Margarete Koppers, Berlin's state prosecutor, has drawn a direct line to what happened in Poland and Hungary, where far-right and populist governments systematically dismantled judicial independence. "A look at European countries that have, at various times, been under authoritarian-populist leadership—and where the structures of the rule of law were subsequently eroded—shows that this is not an unrealistic scenario," a spokesperson for Koppers told Deutsche Welle.
The system's vulnerability runs deeper than most Germans realize. In 2015, federal Justice Minister Heiko Maas issued a directive ordering the federal prosecutor to withdraw a report on compromised state secrets. The prosecutor, Harald Range, was dismissed in the ensuing conflict. No law prevented this. No mechanism required the ministry to justify its action publicly. The Interior Ministries can cite legitimate reasons for some directives—protecting intelligence sources, for instance—but the law draws no distinction between lawful and unlawful uses of this power. Prosecutors are theoretically prohibited from following unlawful directives, but in practice, they work for the ministry and depend on it for resources and career advancement.
Reformers disagree on the solution. The Deutscher Richterbund and Koppers argue for removing the ministries' directive power entirely, making prosecutors genuinely independent. But Gül Pinar, a Hamburg criminal lawyer who testified before the Bundestag on this issue in 2020, proposes a narrower fix: transparency. If directives were documented and made available to defense lawyers, she argues, courts could examine whether they were legally sound or whether they overstepped authority. "The people who are affected by the criminal procedures don't know that certain actions taken by the prosecutors stem from a directive, from the government, or the federal prosecutors, or the Interior Ministry," Pinar told DW. She resists full independence, noting that keeping prosecutors in the executive branch reflects a democratic principle—their actions remain subject to parliamentary oversight.
The federal government has shown no appetite for change. The Federal Justice Ministry responded to inquiries by defending the current system, arguing that existing safeguards are sufficient and that keeping prosecutors in the executive branch ensures accountability. This position has already drawn criticism at the European level. In 2019, the European Court of Justice warned that European arrest warrants could be compromised by political influence because German state prosecutors lack independence. Germany's response—that only judges, not prosecutors, can issue arrest warrants in Germany—actually protects civil liberties more than the European standard. But it also highlights the tension: Germany's system works as long as the executive branch respects its own restraint. Once that restraint breaks, the law offers no backup.
The AfD's likely assumption of power in Saxony-Anhalt will test whether that restraint holds. The party has long viewed the domestic intelligence agency, the Verfassungsschutz, as politicized and hostile. If the AfD controls the Interior Ministry that oversees both prosecutors and the intelligence agency, the potential for conflict—and for abuse—becomes concrete. The judges and prosecutors calling for reform are essentially asking the federal government to act before that moment arrives. Whether the government will do so remains unclear.
Notable Quotes
Currently, the law allows state justice ministries to interfere even in individual criminal proceedings. While there is a political tradition of self-restraint when issuing directives to prosecutors, this tradition can be abandoned at any time and offers no effective protection.— Sven Rebehn, executive director of the Deutscher Richterbund
The rule of law is at risk when its rules are politically abused. A look at European countries that have, at various times, been under authoritarian-populist leadership—and where the structures of the rule of law were subsequently eroded—shows that this is not an unrealistic scenario.— Margarete Koppers, Berlin's state prosecutor, via spokesperson
Want the full story?
Read the original at Deutsche Welle ↗
Politics & Governance