'Dream’s censors': What does Georgia’s communications watchdog do?
Georgian Communications Commission
Transparency International Georgia (TI) warns that one of Georgia’s main media regulatory bodies, the Communications Commission, is increasingly becoming a tool of political influence.
The organization considers it alarming that people linked to the ruling Georgian Dream party and media structures affiliated with it are in charge of reviewing complaints filed against critical broadcasters.
According to TI, this trend resurfaced on April 8, 2026, when the Commission issued written warnings to several broadcasters. The organization sees this step as a serious signal of the introduction of censorship.
Mission of the Commission: by law and in practice
Under Georgian law, the Communications Commission is an independent regulatory body whose function is to ensure a fair environment in telecommunications and protect consumer rights. It is a collegial body made up of five members, with decisions taken by majority vote.
However, TI says the Commission is in reality staffed by people loyal to the ruling team, and it often makes decisions unanimously, taking political interests into account. The organization says many complaints have built up over the years about the Commission’s work, especially over disputed decisions involving critical media outlets.
In this context, TI believes the Commission is turning into a punitive mechanism that the authorities use against opposition broadcasters.
Bekauri’s tenure and its legacy
A turning point in the Commission’s work came during the nine years of Kakhaber Bekauri’s chairmanship, when it adopted a series of decisions against critical broadcasters. TI says those decisions caused significant financial and editorial damage to Georgia’s independent media.
Because of this, Bekauri was sanctioned by Ukraine and Lithuania. In February 2025, the European Parliament also raised the issue of imposing sanctions on him in a resolution on Georgia.
Former lawmaker Goga Gulordava succeeded Bekauri as head of the Commission, raising expectations of even stronger political influence.
Expanded powers and new risks
Amendments to the Law on Broadcasting have worsened the situation, significantly expanding the Commission’s powers and giving it the ability to intervene even in program content.
TI says these changes create a legal basis for tougher restrictions on media, including fines, suspension of broadcasting or the revocation of licenses.
The organization also links these risks to a Commission statement on March 6, 2026, which expressed support for pro-government television channels while also warning critical broadcasters.
A dangerous precedent
On April 8, 2026, the Commission issued written warnings to critical television channels TV Pirveli and Formula over terminology they used, including phrases such as “regime,” “oligarch’s team,” “Dream government,” and similar terms.
The Commission said these formulations violated specific articles of the Law on Broadcasting. However, TI says such a decision creates a dangerous precedent and effectively introduces direct censorship.
The organization says these actions contradict both Georgia’s Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
New chairman
Goga Gulordava became a member of the Commission in December 2025, and in January 2026 it elected him as chairman. His professional experience in media is limited and mainly includes financial and auditing work, including at pro-government television channels.
Gulordava’s political past is directly linked to the Georgian Dream party. He served as a majoritarian member of parliament and as a local government representative from the party.
His professional record also includes disputed public procurement deals, which, TI says, raises further questions about his impartiality.
Other Commission members and the appointment process
Recent changes in the Commission’s composition have also strengthened the impression of political loyalty, TI says. In the competition to fill a Commission seat after one member’s term expired, most candidates were linked to pro-government media. Parliament eventually approved Ani Vazagashvili, who worked in the legal departments of openly pro-government television companies Imedi and Maestro.
TI says such appointments further strengthen suspicions that the Communications Commission cannot act as an independent arbiter, while the risk of politically biased decisions is growing.
Georgian Communications Commission
