The Constitutional Court of Georgia began hearings on Wednesday after the ruling Georgian Dream party filed a lawsuit seeking to ban five prominent opposition parties. This development raises concerns among critics who argue it could effectively extinguish political competition and install an authoritarian state.
The lawsuit comes amid an ongoing crackdown on dissent that has intensified in recent years, particularly after mass protests sparked by the government’s decision to suspend negotiations to join the European Union.
To curtail these protests, which have persisted almost daily since November 2024, authorities have implemented measures including mass arrests, fines, and stricter regulations on public assemblies. Furthermore, authorities have enacted a series of laws targeting civil society organisations and independent media, with critics noting that some appear modelled on similar legislation in Russia, where dissent has been notably suppressed.
Outside the courthouse in Batumi, demonstrators gathered as a seven-judge panel heard the case against the principal pro-Western opposition parties: the United National Movement, Coalition for Change, Strong Georgia–Lelo, the Federalists, and Gakharia for Georgia. The lawsuit asks the court to declare these parties’ activities unconstitutional and ban them, alleging they intend to undermine the constitutional order, as well as Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity. The hearings are scheduled to continue through Friday.
Opposition leaders have rejected these allegations, arguing that Georgian Dream is using the judicial system to eliminate its main competitors ahead of the parliamentary elections planned for 2028. “This is not merely about banning political parties,” stated Irakli Pavlenishvili, deputy chairman of the United National Movement. “It signifies a critical deterioration of democracy in Georgia.”
Georgian opposition denounced the 2024 election
The ongoing lawsuit focuses on the opposition’s refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the recently elected parliament, which the plaintiffs characterise as part of a broader sabotage campaign. According to official results, four of the five targeted parties collectively received approximately 38% of the vote, successfully securing seats in the 2024 parliamentary election. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, emerged victorious, further entrenching its long-standing influence within Georgian politics.
In response to the results, the United National Movement, Coalition for Change, and Strong Georgia–Lelo have forfeited their seats, alleging electoral fraud. Currently, Gakharia for Georgia remains the sole opposition party represented in parliament, holding 11 out of 150 seats.
Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has publicly defended the lawsuit, arguing that electoral support should not determine a political party’s operational status. He has characterised the Georgian opposition as “liberal fascists,” emphasising that the central issue lies in the policies pursued by these parties and their potential unconstitutionality.
“What matters are the policies political parties adopt and whether they abide by constitutional principles; this is precisely what we aim to demonstrate in our lawsuit,” he stated.
Zurab Girchi Japaridze, a leader in the Coalition for Change, said the lawsuit aims to limit opposition politicians’ ability to challenge Georgian Dream in the upcoming 2028 elections. He remarked, “The goal appears to be the elimination of all political leaders and parties that participated in the 2024 elections.”
Japaridze further cautioned that if the Constitutional Court rules in favour of Georgian Dream, opposition leaders could face imprisonment or exile, and numerous individuals who appeared on opposition electoral lists might be barred from future political engagement.
Ana Buchukuri, representing Gakharia for Georgia, said such actions would make any critical voice or dissent unconstitutional. Sandro Baramidze, who oversees the human rights and rule of law programme at Transparency International Georgia, noted that the lawsuit lacks the constitutional basis required to justify banning any political party. He noted that the Constitution allows banning political parties only under specific circumstances, such as involvement in violent coups or instigating hatred or hostility.
“None of these conditions is applicable in this particular instance,” Baramidze asserted, adding that a ruling in favour of the lawsuit would be deemed “entirely arbitrary.”
This article used information from The Associated Press.
