Hungarian President Tamas Sulyok has signed the 17th amendment to the Fundamental Law, on July 19, ending his own mandate despite strongly criticising the legislation and warning that it marks a turning point for Hungary's constitutional democracy.

The amendment, adopted earlier this week by the Tisza-led government's two-thirds parliamentary majority, terminates Sulyok's presidency before the end of his original five-year term, which was due to run until 2029.

In a seven-minute video statement released on July 18, Sulyok said the amendment violated the principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of state institutions, Index.hu writes.

He warned that the amendment would permanently weaken the office of the president by making it more vulnerable to the parliamentary majority of the day.

He argued that restrictions introduced by the constitutional amendment created a dangerous precedent that would leave a lasting scar on Hungary's democratic system.

The constitutional amendment goes far beyond replacing the president. It restores a mandatory retirement age of 70 for Constitutional Court judges, forcing the departure of former chief prosecutor Peter Polt and three other judges once the provision takes effect. It also reduces Constitutional Court judges' terms from 12 years to nine years, returns the power to elect the court's president to the judges themselves and expands judicial involvement in appointing the heads of key courts.

The reform also introduces a 12-year lifetime limit for members of parliament, meaning lawmakers who have already served three full terms will no longer be eligible to stand in future elections. In addition, it abolishes the Budget Council's veto power over the state budget, establishes a new National Asset Recovery and Protection Office as part of the government's anti-corruption agenda, dissolves the parliamentary guard and restores the Constitutional Court's authority to review certain budgetary and tax legislation.

However, Sulyok said he believed he had no legal choice but to sign the legislation, as refusing to promulgate a constitutionally adopted amendment would have been unlawful in itself. Had Sulyok declined to sign the law by the five-day deadline given by law, the government would have launched an impeachment procedure, which, according to analysts, would have prolonged the constitutional crisis.

His mandate ends on July 20, after which parliamentary speaker Agnes Forsthoffer will serve as interim president until parliament elects a new president within 30 days.

Sulyok, the former head of the Constitution Court, was elected president in 2024 by the then Fidesz parliamentary majority after the resignation of Katalin Novak following the clemency scandal, which led to the emergence of Prime Minister Peter Magyar, the former husband of then justice minister Judit Varga, who also withdrew from public life in February 2024.

Magyar has said Hungary needs a non-partisan president, capable of representing the nation's unity and acceptable beyond the governing parties.

"Tisza's stance is that a president without a past and commitment in party politics would represent Hungary's unity best," Magyar said after Sulyok signed the 17th amendment of the Fundamental Law.  The party has not yet announced its candidate.

The removal of Sulyok had been one of Magyar's key campaign pledges ahead of the April election. The former Constitutional Court president was elected head of state in 2024 by the previous Fidesz parliamentary majority following the resignation of Katalin Novák. Since taking office, Sulyok had been widely criticised by the opposition for rarely challenging legislation introduced by Viktor Orban's government.

Following Tisza's election victory, Magyar repeatedly called on Sulyok to resign voluntarily, arguing that key officeholders appointed under the previous administration lacked democratic legitimacy after the change of government. When Sulyok refused, the government opted to amend the constitution to remove him.

The move has divided legal experts. Supporters of the government's approach argue that replacing officials appointed during what they describe as Hungary's period of democratic backsliding is necessary to rebuild independent institutions. Critics, however, contend that dismissing a sitting president through a constitutional amendment weakens constitutional stability and creates a precedent that future governments could use against political opponents.

Opposition party Fidesz accused Tisza of pushing the country into a period of “open power abuse”.

"Magyar and the Tisza party have launched a violent attack on the president in a way that was unprecedented in the European Union, putting him in an undignified position, pressuring him and finally arbitrarily removing him from office. This is without precedent in Hungary since the darkest dictatorships," the party said.

Former prime minister Viktor Orban, who is in the United States for the World Cup, echoed the same criticism in a social media post, saying the country had lost its final institutional safeguard.

"If this can be done to the president of the republic, no one is safe any longer," he said. "God save Hungary," he concluded.

In a note, political think-tank Political Capital said the Tisza government has won a major political battle by removing the heads of state, but how the move will be judged in the long run remains an open question.

The institute said the government had a clear electoral mandate to remove Sulyok, but argued that the political legacy of the decision will depend on the successor and the government’s performance. If parliament elects a respected and independent president, Sulyok's removal is more likely to be seen as justified. But if he or she is viewed as a loyalist, then the move could alienate voters beyond the party's core supporters.

The second factor is the government's own performance. Political Capital said the public currently supports replacing officials linked to the Orban era, but if confidence in the Magyar government declines, Sulyok's dismissal could later be seen as the moment the new administration overstepped constitutional norms.

Political analyst Gabor Torok said Sulyok had failed to fulfil the president’s constitutional duty of safeguarding the democratic functioning of state institutions. He criticised the president for signing legislation he disagreed with, arguing that resigning would have been a better way to protect the office. His decision to sign the constitutional amendment ending his mandate showed he was unfit for the role, he added.