OMM Newsroom
AnewZ reports that Georgia’s Constitutional Court is examining a case seeking to ban five opposition parties. The proceedings have been accompanied by disputes over election protests, judicial impartiality and political freedoms. As the legal battle intensifies, opposition groups are preparing for new street demonstrations.
Hearings resumed on October 26, bringing to the fore questions about what constitutes an attempt to overthrow the constitutional order and whether the defense has had a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations.
The lawsuit, signed by 88 lawmakers from the ruling Georgian Dream party, calls for the bans of the United National Movement, the Coalition for Change, Strong Georgia–Lelo, the Federalists and For Georgia.
Georgian Dream accuses the parties of threatening Georgia’s constitutional order, independence and territorial integrity. The opposition rejects the allegations and describes the case as an attempt to eliminate political rivals.
The court has not yet issued a ruling and is continuing to hear arguments from both sides.
Court accepts some evidence from the defense
On October 26, the court partially granted a motion by the For Georgia party to submit additional evidence, including video footage, news reports and statements by Georgian Dream officials.
The judges rejected other proposed evidence and refused to summon several witnesses, including Georgian Dream founder Bidzina Ivanishvili and Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze.
Before that ruling, the court had denied a number of defense motions. It rejected a request to postpone hearings until November 13, proposals to seek an advisory opinion from the European Court of Human Rights and to hear experts appointed by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission.
The decision gives the defense an opportunity to challenge some aspects of the ruling party’s position, but most attempts to broaden the scope of the proceedings have been unsuccessful.
Opposition disputes claim that election protests justify a ban
On October 28, Giga Lemonjava of the Coalition for Change said that refusing to recognize election results does not, in itself, constitute an attempt to overthrow the constitutional order.
He said political parties have no legal obligation to recognize election results. Lemonjava argued that such a position cannot justify banning a party without evidence of violence or an attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
The argument addresses a central issue in Georgian Dream’s lawsuit. The ruling party links its case to the opposition’s response to the disputed results of the 2024 parliamentary election, subsequent protests and calls for a new vote.
The ruling party alleges that the political activity and cooperation of the targeted groups have undermined the constitutional system. The lawsuit also relies on findings by a parliamentary commission that investigated alleged violations during Mikheil Saakashvili’s presidency.
The defense says the lawsuit blurs the line between legitimate political opposition and an attempt to overthrow the state. The judges must now determine whether the evidence meets the constitutional threshold required to ban each party.
On October 28, Lemonjava cited an October 8 European Parliament resolution that condemned attempts to ban opposition parties and called for the lawsuit to be withdrawn.
Constitutional Court President Revaz Nadaraia questioned the resolution’s relevance to the case. He said the defense should use the hearings to focus on the constitutional complaint, rather than to deliver political messages.
Nika Gvaramia of the Coalition for Change challenged that position, stressing that the broader political context was relevant to the proceedings. The dispute highlighted disagreements over whether international criticism and concerns about democratic standards should be considered in the case.
On October 29, Gvaramia turned the ruling party’s legal argument against it. He suggested that if the same constitutional standards were applied consistently, there could also be grounds to ban Georgian Dream.
Gvaramia said that interpreting the Constitution to limit government power and prevent political competition could also apply to Georgian Dream. He argued that calls for elections, justice and the release of political prisoners did not amount to the conduct described in the lawsuit.
His remarks challenged the consistency of the ruling party’s legal reasoning but did not establish that Georgian Dream had violated the Constitution.
Opposition figures and civil society activists have compared the proceedings to Franz Kafka’s novel “The Trial,” describing them as absurd and grotesque. In the novel, a man becomes trapped in an opaque judicial process. The comparison reflects concerns that political statements, disputed election results and protest activity could be treated as grounds to ban political organizations.
The court’s response to defense motions and questions about judicial impartiality have also drawn increased attention. Constitutional Court judge Manana Kobakhidze resigned after the court rejected her request to recuse herself. Her previous role as one of Georgian Dream’s founders and its first chairperson has raised concerns about impartiality, given that lawmakers from the party filed the lawsuit.
The court is continuing its work with seven judges. Rejection of defense motions does not in itself prove bias, but rulings on evidence and questions about impartiality remain in focus. Georgian Dream denies that the case is politically motivated and says it is pursuing a constitutional process.
Outside the courtroom, opposition groups are seeking to keep up pressure on the government through demonstrations. A march held in Tbilisi on October 25 under the slogan “Georgia without Ivanishvili. Georgia deserves better” brought together several opposition groups.
Organizers are preparing to hold another rally on November 28. The date marks the second anniversary of the government’s announcement that it was suspending EU accession talks, a decision that triggered a sustained wave of protests.
The demonstrations have not led to a change in government policy, but street protests remain a key part of the opposition’s response to Georgia’s political crisis. The Federalists have refused to attend the court hearings, arguing that their participation would lend legitimacy to the proceedings.
As of October 29, the court was hearing arguments from the parties. The judges are expected to begin questioning them before the proceedings move toward a conclusion.
The court must issue its ruling by June 2027, and the decision cannot be appealed in Georgia.
If the lawsuit is upheld, all five parties could be banned. This could alter Georgia’s political landscape ahead of the 2028 parliamentary election.
Four of the targeted political groups won seats in the disputed 2024 election but later gave up their mandates. For Georgia has 11 lawmakers.
Georgian Dream presents the lawsuit as a constitutional measure aimed at protecting the state. The opposition says it risks excluding key political rivals from electoral competition. The outcome could have a major impact on political competition in Georgia.
