Felor Badenberg: This is why the AfD report is not suitable for a ban procedure

The controversy surrounding the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's AfD report and the debate surrounding its consequences continues. Now, Berlin's Justice Senator Felor Badenberg (CDU) says in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung that while the report is useful, it is nevertheless not suitable as a tool for a potential ban against the party, which, according to the report, can now be described as "certainly right-wing extremist."

"The report is important and correct, and in the opinion of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, it provides numerous indications of right-wing extremist tendencies," says Badenberg. However, "this classification alone does not necessarily justify the initiation of ban proceedings," the senator added. "This would require evidence that the AfD is actively and systematically acting to undermine or even eliminate the Free Democratic Constitution." However, this does not emerge from the current report.

Justice Senator Badenberg: The AfD leadership has become cautious

One of the reasons for this is that the quotes and statements collected in the nearly 1,100-page report from recent years come from a variety of sources. "If a simple AfD member expresses extremist views, this cannot simply be attributed to the federal party," says Badenberg. The people at the top of the party have become more cautious over the years.

Nevertheless, politicians from the Left Party, the Green Party, the SPD, and to some extent even the CDU are calling for a ban based on the report. She believes this is happening too quickly, says the 50-year-old administrative lawyer. She also warns against "politicizing the work of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution." The agency decides autonomously which groups, associations, or parties it investigates for possible anti-constitutional activity. And it must remain that way. The federal and state interior ministries are only allowed to exercise administrative oversight for the office, not technical oversight. In other words: It cannot issue directives.

But is that realistic? And how does Badenberg's call for the independence of the intelligence sphere fit with the obvious, even personal, connection to the political sphere? There are plenty of examples from the recent past.

Thus, after being released from his duties as President of the Federal Office, Hans-Georg Maaßen transitioned seamlessly into politics, aiming to become a member of the Bundestag for the CDU in Thuringia. Maaßen has since left the CDU and has been party chairman of the Values ​​Union since its founding in February of last year.

Maaßen's successor, Thomas Haldenwang, announced in November 2024, one and a half months before his long-planned departure as chief intelligence officer, that he would run for the Bundestag for the CDU. He ultimately failed because he failed to secure a direct mandate in the Wuppertal I constituency.

Badenberg herself also took a similar path. After almost 18 years at the Federal Office, where she was responsible for AfD proceedings and ultimately served as Vice President, she moved to Berlin to pursue politics.

When asked about the legitimacy of such obvious proximity, Badenberg remained evasive. She argued that no one should be prevented from entering politics after serving in the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. She advocated for a certain cooling-off period.

AfD report: Interior ministers want to discuss consequences

But what happens next? The Conference of Interior Ministers of the German states will meet in Bremerhaven in June. One of the goals is to find the most uniform approach possible for addressing the consequences of the report. For example, the extent to which the upgrade will affect AfD members and officials in the public service will be examined. For example, membership alone could mean the end of a new appointment in several security-relevant areas – for example, within the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution itself, but also at other agencies.

For example, CDU security politician Roderich Kiesewetter is calling for strict action against AfD members in the public service. "The party's upgrade could and should have an impact on civil servants and public employees, because membership in the AfD is incompatible with it," the politician said.

Senator Badenberg generally urges caution regarding these issues. She had already stated in early May, shortly after outgoing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) made the upgrade public , that she considered debates about banning the AfD premature. This also applies to the treatment of AfD members.

Politicians, such as Berlin Green Party parliamentary group leader Werner Graf, consider such statements "frightening," as he told the Tagesspiegel on Thursday. The senator is far too defensive. He demands that Badenberg "examine and demonstrate all options the state has against right-wing extremists in public service." Badenberg must "take on this future task instead of further reinforcing the AfD's victim myths," Graf said.

In an interview with the Berliner Zeitung, Badenberg declined to comment on the allegations in detail. Instead, she remained general and rejected prejudgments and generalizations. "The upgrade has no direct consequences for public sector employees under employment law. Constitutional loyalty must always be examined on a case-by-case basis. In each case, there must be evidence of unconstitutional behavior," she said.

And the former top constitutional protection officer also has clear words for all those leftists who now want to use the report for their own purposes: "There is no such thing as good extremism."