The Georgian ombudsman backed parliament's legitimacy, but 37 colleagues opposed
Ombudsman’s Office: The Parliament is illegitimate
37 staff members of Georgia’s public defender’s office distanced themselves from Ombudsman Levan Ioseliani’s statement recognizing the newly elected parliament as “fully legitimate.”
They criticized the ombudsman’s involvement in processes they described as violating constitutional norms and undermining trust in the public defender’s office as an independent institution.
Georgia has been gripped by mass protests for a month, with demonstrators alleging fraud in the October 26 parliamentary election and rejecting the legitimacy of the new parliament. According to official results, the ruling Georgian Dream party won 89 of 150 seats, but opposition parties that entered parliament have refused to participate and are demanding a new vote.
Levan Ioseliani also took part in the first parliamentary session on November 25, which was joined only by lawmakers from the ruling party. They were able to enter and exit the parliament building with the help of special forces, as thousands of protesters were gathered outside at the time.
Independent legal experts argue that the session was unlawful. Lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of all 150 newly elected lawmakers are currently being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, with cases filed by the president and some members of parliament.
According to the Constitution, the parliament would have been allowed to convene only in two cases: if the Constitutional Court either accepted these lawsuits for review or dismissed them as unfounded. Neither of these occurred. As a result, the parliament, by convening, placed itself outside the Constitution.
Statement by 37 staff members of the Ombudsman’s Office:
“We, the staff of the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia, have always been and remain loyal to the people, the interests of the state, and the fundamental principles and goals of the constitutional body. As public servants, since taking our oath of office, we are guided solely by the Constitution of Georgia, the laws of Georgia, and international agreements.
Our sole purpose is to ensure the timely, comprehensive, independent, and impartial oversight of human rights protection.
The Constitution of Georgia and the parliamentary regulations deem it unacceptable to recognize the parliament’s authority if the legality of the election of its members is being challenged in the Constitutional Court. As is known, the issue of the legality of the elections of all 150 members of parliament has been contested in the Constitutional Court by the President of Georgia and one-fifth of the members of parliament.
We deeply regret that the Public Defender participated in processes that violate constitutional and legal order. Such actions negatively affect the reputation of the institution, which has been built by many people who have worked here over the years, not just the specific public defenders elected for a limited term.”
