Fidesz is presenting a continuing investigation into one of its supporters as evidence of political intimidation, despite prosecutors finding no proof that the government directed the police action.
Hungary’s former governing party has turned the case involving public figure István Szakács into a political mobilisation tool against the government led by Péter Magyar. The case began after Szakács posted a video in June saying that, if Viktor Orbán were arrested, “500,000 Hungarians would go to free him”. He was subsequently searched, had personal belongings seized and was taken for questioning on suspicion of threatening a terrorist act and engaging in radical activity.
The case and its political use were reported by Contextus on 23 August 2026. On 17 July, prosecutors withdrew Szakács’s status as a suspect, saying there was insufficient evidence to establish a well-founded suspicion that he had threatened a terrorist act. But the investigation itself was not closed. Prosecutors also said that opening the investigation, conducting the search and seizing property had been lawful.
A retreat on suspicion, not an end to the case
That distinction is central to the dispute. Szakács is no longer being investigated as a suspect, but the authorities have not declared the proceedings unlawful or abandoned the investigation. It is continuing without him holding suspect status.
Fidesz has nevertheless treated the withdrawal of that status as confirmation of its claim that the case was politically motivated. In doing so, the party has highlighted the decision to remove Szakács’s suspect designation while downplaying the prosecutors’ conclusion that the initial investigative steps were lawful and that the wider inquiry remained open.
The available account contains no public evidence that the search, seizure or questioning were ordered by Magyar’s government. Nor has the prosecution established any government intervention in the investigative measures. That absence does not prevent Fidesz from presenting the case as part of a broader campaign of intimidation against people sympathetic to the party and to Orbán.
Fidesz seeks to recast enforcement as repression
The party’s framing gives a single criminal investigation a wider political meaning. Rather than treating the prosecution decision as a limited assessment of the evidence against Szakács, Fidesz uses it to support a narrative of political persecution directed at its supporters.
That approach allows the former governing party to portray law-enforcement action against an Orbán-aligned activist as proof of hostility from the current administration, even when the authorities have not found the underlying investigative steps to be unlawful. The case therefore becomes useful not only as a defence of Szakács, but also as a warning to the party’s remaining electorate that its supporters could be targeted under the new government.
The political value of the narrative lies in its simplicity: the search and questioning are presented as repression, while the later removal of suspect status is presented as evidence that the authorities overreached. The continued investigation, and the prosecutors’ finding that the original measures were lawful, receive less prominence in that version of events.
A precedent for future confrontations
Fidesz’s handling of the case risks establishing a pattern in which any police or prosecutorial action involving activists loyal to Orbán is interpreted by the party as political persecution. Under that logic, an investigation does not need to be shown to have been ordered by the government in order to serve as evidence of government repression.
That is the strategic significance of the Szakács affair. The issue is no longer only whether prosecutors had enough evidence to maintain his suspect status. It is also whether the legal process will be used to reinforce political loyalty and mobilise Fidesz supporters against Magyar’s government.
For now, the official position leaves both elements in place: Szakács is no longer a suspect, but the investigation continues, and the legality of the initial investigative measures has not been overturned. The unresolved question is how far Fidesz can turn that distinction into a durable account of political repression.
Should the continuing investigation be judged mainly by its legal findings, or by the way Fidesz has used it to mobilise supporters?
