Police protecting their own or justice? The death of Rudolf Flaška opened Pandora's box

The death of the former elite criminalist Rudolf Flaška should not end up as another closed media story. His last words, addressed to the highest representatives of the state, the judiciary and the police, are not just the testimony of one person. They are an indictment of a system that, he believes, has stopped serving justice and started protecting itself above all. And therein lies the greatest danger.

The Police of the Czech Republic is an institution that has extraordinary powers. It can interfere with the fundamental rights of citizens, limit personal freedom, collect information and significantly influence human destinies. That is why it must be subjected to extremely strict control. Unfortunately, more and more often, the impression is created that instead of open self-reflection, the defense of institutions against criticism prevails.

At the same time, the biggest problem is not ordinary police officers. They put their health and life on the line every day. The real problem is a part of the upper management, which has been creating a closed power layer for many years. Officials move between regional directorates, the Police Presidium, the Ministry and other leading positions. The staffing changes only seemingly. In fact, the same circle of people who know each other, evaluate and decide on their successors often rotates.

Such a system need not be illegal. However, it is legitimate to ask whether it does not create an environment in which personal ties, career loyalty and the protection of the institution's reputation come before an objective assessment of one's own or the institution's misconduct.

I consider the position of police officers who point out possible illegalities, incompetent management or abuse of authority to be extremely alarming. From my own experience and from the experience of a number of former and current police officers whom I know personally, I perceive a repeating pattern. Too often the whistleblower does not become a partner in seeking redress. It becomes a problem. Instead of rigorously checking his initiatives, what follows is the questioning of his expertise, personal discrediting, professional isolation or the creation of conditions that lead to his departure from the church. It is an experience that is repeated so often among police officers that it can no longer be simply dismissed as a coincidence.

If the belief spreads within the security forces that raising a problem means risking one's own career, one of the basic mechanisms of a democratic state ceases to function. Silence becomes safer than the truth. And an organization that begins to punish criticism instead of its own mistakes gradually loses the ability to self-reflect.

No less serious questions are raised by the functioning of the entire criminal justice system. The police, the prosecutor's office and the courts have different roles. Their cooperation is essential, but their independence must be real, not merely formal. The public expects that each link in this chain will be able to independently correct any mistakes made by the previous one. However, if citizens repeatedly get the impression that individual institutions rather confirm the correctness of their conclusions than subject them to critical review, trust in justice inevitably weakens.

Equally disturbing is the different decisions of the courts in similar cases. Of course, law is not mathematics and each case has its own specific circumstances. Nevertheless, the different conclusions must be convincingly explained. If a citizen cannot understand why two similar cases ended completely differently, he begins to doubt the predictability of the law. And where predictability disappears, so does trust.

The rule of law does not stand only on laws. It rests on the trust of citizens that the laws will be applied equally to all, regardless of function, rank or social status. As soon as the belief arises that some persons are actually protected by the system more than others, a feeling of double standards arises. And double standards are one of the biggest enemies of democracy.

The case of Rudolf Flaška must therefore not be forgotten. It should not be used to downplay it as a personal failing of an individual. It should prompt a thorough public debate about whether the current system adequately protects honest police officers, supports whistleblowers, holds leaders personally accountable and provides citizens with truly independent and predictable justice.

The strongest institutions are not those that never admit a mistake. The strongest are those who have the courage to admit it, investigate it and correct it. A state that begins to protect primarily its functionaries instead of the principles on which its legitimacy rests is not only moving away from justice. It is moving away from the very foundations of a democratic legal state, becoming a totalitarian state.

Source:

1. European Commission. (2026).EU Justice Scoreboard 2026. Brussels: European Commission. Available from:European Commission – EU Justice Scoreboard 2026

2. The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic. (2026).According to the EU Judiciary Scoreboard for 2026, the Czech Republic performs excellently in most indicators. Available from:The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic - press release  

3. Kozohorský, P. (2026).Fine and driving ban. The former head of the murder party was driving drunk, he may even lose his benefits.iDNES.cz, 12 June 2026. Available from:iDNES.cz– article by Petr Kozohorský

4. Czech justice. (2026).Colonel Flaška's death after the verdict: GIBS took over the case. Czech Justice, 30 June 2026. Available from:Czech justice – Colonel Flaška's death after the verdict

5. Parliament of the Czech Republic. (2008).Act No. 273/2008 Coll., on the Police of the Czech Republic. As amended. Available from:Laws for people - Act No. 273/2008 Coll.