Court begins hearing case to ban opposition parties in Georgia: first-day developments
On 21 October, Georgia’s Constitutional Court in Batumi began hearing on the merits a lawsuit brought by the ruling Georgian Dream party, which seeks to ban five opposition parties: the United National Movement, the Coalition for Change, Lelo – Strong Georgia, Gakharia for Georgia and the Federalists.
Below are the main events and statements from the first day of hearings. The court rejected all the opposition’s motions. The session ended at 19:00.
The hearings continue today, 22 October, and will also take place on 23 October. The court has until 24 June 2027 to deliver its ruling. Four of the seven judges must vote in favour for the court to uphold the claim.
Opening of the hearing
● The court hearing began at 12:00. Georgian Dream is represented in court by MPs Archil Gorduladze, Giorgi Kakhiani, Tengiz Sharmanashvili and Tornike Cheishvili.
● The United National Movement was represented by Ana Tsitlidze, Khatia Dekanoidze and lawyer Zaza Bibilashvili; the Coalition for Change by Nika Gvaramia; Lelo by Badri Japaridze, Giorgi Sioridze and lawyers; and Gakharia for Georgia by Berdia Sichinava.
● The Federalists did not attend the hearing, as the party believes there is no point in taking part in the proceedings.
● Two leaders of the Coalition for Change, Nika Melia and Elene Khoshtaria, are following the proceedings from prison. Melia was arrested for failing to appear before a parliamentary commission whose findings now form the main basis of the lawsuit seeking to ban the parties.
● Only journalists from Georgia’s Public Broadcaster were allowed to bring cameras into the courtroom. Other media outlets followed the hearing on the court’s YouTube channel. Until now, the Constitutional Court had been the only court exempt from the ban on filming that applies in courts of general jurisdiction.
Calls for judges to recuse themselves
● The hearing began with a motion to disqualify the judges. Ana Tsitlidze, leader of the United National Movement, called for all seven members of the court’s plenary session to recuse themselves. She read out each judge’s biography and argued that the panel could not act freely and fairly.
● Tsitlidze described the proposed ban on the parties as “a decision taken by the Kremlin against Georgia’s sovereignty and freedom”.
Presiding judge Revaz Nadaraya responded: “Make your political assessments elsewhere. This is a courtroom, where rules, procedures and the law apply. You are free to make assessments, but somewhere else.”
● Tsitlidze then called Nadaraya himself a member of the “judicial clan”.
Nadaraya replied: “You must present your position with legal justification. When you use such insulting language, the court will not accept it. I will have to issue a warning and may have to order you to leave the courtroom.”
Tsitlidze then replaced the word “clan” with other terms.
● Tsitlidze also called judge Eva Gotsiridze a “member of the clan”. Regarding judge Vasil Roinishvili, she highlighted the fact that he had served as deputy chief prosecutor in 2008–09, during the United National Movement’s time in power.
● Lelo also called for three judges to recuse themselves. The Coalition for Change joined its motion. Gakharia for Georgia did not state its position.
● The plenary session rejected all the motions for recusal. Nadaraya explained that a judge’s biography or past career, if someone dislikes it, does not constitute legal grounds for disqualification. He also recalled that the plenary session had rejected a request for judge Manana Kobakhidze to recuse herself, describing that decision as “a high-standard ruling”.
On 9 October, the plenary session refused to let Kobakhidze, one of the founders of Georgian Dream, recuse herself. She subsequently left the court.
“One party, one proceeding”
● The court also rejected a motion by Gakharia for Georgia to hear its case separately from those against the other four parties. The party’s representative, Berdia Sichinava, called for the principle of “one political party — one proceeding” to be upheld.
The party put forward two arguments, both of which Sichinava outlined at a briefing on 20 October, the day before the hearing. First, the court must assess each party’s constitutionality individually. Sichinava called this “a minimum legal obligation and standard” that the court should meet, at least formally.
Second, Gakharia for Georgia is the only opposition party that took up its seats in parliament rather than surrendering its mandates. Sichinava argued that including it in the lawsuit undermines Georgian Dream’s narrative that it seeks to ban only so-called “boycott parties” that reject the authorities’ legitimacy. He also described the ruling party’s approach as unconstitutional.
Nadaraya explained that the court would base its decision on each defendant solely on the facts relating to that party. He added that the law would not allow the court to issue an adverse ruling if the evidence proved insufficient.
Witnesses: from Saakashvili to Ivanishvili
● The United National Movement asked the court to summon the party’s founder, Georgia’s third president Mikheil Saakashvili, and former party chairman Levan Khabeishvili as witnesses. The court rejected the motion.
● The United National Movement also sought to summon Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and honorary chairman of Georgian Dream, along with current and former senior officials who had previously served under the United National Movement government. Tsitlidze argued that if the court wanted to ban the party for “systemic crime”, these people should answer questions about whether the alleged crimes were indeed systemic.
Nadaraya replied: “The plenary session has not seen a specific connection to the case or the lawsuit, or any indication of what exactly these witnesses would confirm.”
● The court ordered Khatia Dekanoidze to leave the courtroom while she was arguing in favour of summoning Ivanishvili. She said Ivanishvili ran the country single-handedly and was steering Georgia closer to Russia.
Nadaraya warned her several times, saying she was making political statements rather than explaining the legal grounds for calling Ivanishvili as a witness. The judge then instructed a court usher to remove Dekanoidze from the courtroom.
The Tsulukiani commission’s findings: the main basis for the lawsuit
● The second half of the day focused on the findings of a parliamentary commission led by Tea Tsulukiani. Parliament established the commission on 5 February 2025 to investigate the United National Movement’s time in power from 2003 to 2012.
The opposition considers the commission, like parliament itself, illegitimate. Several opposition leaders have been arrested for failing to appear before it. Georgian Dream filed its lawsuit on the basis of the commission’s findings, which also form part of the case documents.
● The Coalition for Change asked the court to exclude the commission’s findings from the evidence. Nika Gvaramia said the findings underpinned 95% of the lawsuit. He argued that the commission itself had been established in breach of the Constitution, which requires the opposition to make up half its membership. In his view, the commission could not legally operate without meeting this requirement.
● Gvaramia and Nadaraya clashed while he presented the motion. Nadaraya reprimanded Gvaramia for making political assessments.
● Georgian Dream representative Archil Gorduladze argued that the commission had been established lawfully because all parliamentary groups had the opportunity to join it. “The defendant’s problem lies with the facts cited in the findings, not with the content of the findings themselves, which cover all those facts,” he said.
● After several hours of debate, the plenary session refused to exclude Tsulukiani’s commission findings from the evidence.
What happened outside the courthouse
● A protest took place outside the courthouse while the hearing was under way. Police deployed around the perimeter of the building.
● Nineteen non-governmental organisations issued a joint statement describing the hearing as a particularly grave stage in Georgia’s autocratisation. They also noted that, according to the Central Election Commission’s official results, the parties Georgian Dream wants to ban received 784,830 votes in the 2024 parliamentary election — almost 38% of the total.
● German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Kathrin Deschauer said in Berlin: “This is another step in this trend, which is increasingly distancing Georgia from the European Union and weakening domestic democracy.” She added that Germany would convey its concerns to the Georgian side.
● The European liberal party ALDE called on the European Union to impose tougher sanctions on those responsible within Georgian Dream.
● Georgia’s fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili, released a video statement saying: “Today is a shameful day for Georgia and Georgian statehood.” She also criticised Gakharia for Georgia for seeking a separate hearing. According to Zourabichvili, the party was “somehow trying to ingratiate itself and present itself as saying: ‘Look, I’m good, I’m a good slave, and I’ll serve you even more.’”
● Georgian Dream MP Giga Parulava advised Zourabichvili to improve her vocabulary and “come down to earth”.
Reactions after the hearing
● Georgian Dream representative Tengiz Sharmanashvili said the discussion was beginning to focus on legal issues and that he felt more optimistic.
● Archil Gorduladze said the opposition’s motions to disqualify the judges were an attempt to turn the proceedings into a political debate.
“We will not allow you to politicise this case,” judges also told the opposition several times yesterday.
● Ana Tsitlidze said the first day had exposed the proceedings as a formality and that the decision had already been made. Giorgi Sioridze, representing Lelo, said the judges appeared “disorganised” and that their refusal seemed “helpless”. Nika Gvaramia said the opposition needed the allegations to be set out individually, as it could not respond to a “collective phantom”.
Ban on the opposition in Georgia
