“This creates the foundation for prohibiting many people from political activity in the future and allows ‘Georgian Dream,’ similar to a communist party, to exist as a one-party state,” says lawyer Giorgi Burjanadze. We spoke with him regarding the lawsuit filed by Georgian Dream, which seeks to ban three political parties.
Burjanadze refers to the lawsuit as the so-called ‘Georgian Dream’ lawsuit because it is entirely politicizedthe clearest proof being the statements made by Georgian Dream itself.
“The three parties slated for banning are explicitly named by Georgian Dream as being ‘punished’ for refusing to recognize the rigged parliamentary elections. Refusing to recognize rigged elections is not a valid legal ground for banning a political party,” Burjanadze explains.
The lawyer emphasizes the main danger: after banning these parties, Georgian Dream could attribute any politically undesirable individual to a banned party and prohibit their political activity.
Burjanadze is a legal advisor for the Civil Society Foundation and an associate professor at Free University of Tbilisi.
Q: Mr. Burjanadze, what is the main legal problem with Georgian Dream’s lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties?
The main issue is that this so-called lawsuit exceeds the bounds of constitutional regulation. Georgia’s Constitution allows banning a political party, but it lists exhaustive grounds for doing so. These grounds are narrowly defined and apply when a party poses a fundamental threat to democracy for example, inciting hatred, violently undermining constitutional order, or provoking regional conflict.
First, none of these allegations are present. The three parties targeted are explicitly named by Georgian Dream because they refuse to recognize rigged parliamentary elections.
Refusal to recognize rigged elections is not a legal basis for banning a party. For instance, Georgian Dream did not seek to ban Gakharia’s party ‘For Georgia’ because it entered parliamentary activity.
Moreover, the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court and the Organic Law on Citizens’ Political Associations were rapidly amended, accelerating the legal process.
Q: Does this mean that if Georgian Dream targets a politically undesirable person, it could link them to a banned party and block their political activity?
Absolutely. The goal is not only to ban the existing three parties but to lay the groundwork to prohibit any individual from political activity in the future.
We effectively do not have an independent Constitutional Court. It consists of eight members, only two of whom are truly independent (Temur Tugushi and Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze); the remaining six are partisan and aligned with Georgian Dream, approving everything. Naturally, decisions justified by them cannot be considered impartial or predictable.
This unconstitutional legislative framework, created in three days through rapid amendments, violates the Constitution and enables Georgian Dream, like a communist party, to operate as a one-party state.
Special deadlines have been set: for instance, decisions on party bans must be issued within nine months. For individuals affected by a party ban, the Constitutional Court has 14 days to make a decision regarding restrictions on passive electoral rights (the right to be elected).
Q: Does the Court meet such deadlines in practice?
Not at all. No example exists where the Court resolved a matter in 14 days. Even presidential impeachment took one month.
Georgian Dream included specific cases to justify banning the United National Movement (UNM). Does this constitute a legal argument for violating rights?
A single human rights violation, unless it threatens the democratic constitutional order, is not sufficient to ban a party. The lawsuit exceeds constitutional limits.
The temporal factor matters: a party that has not been in power for 13 years poses less risk of violating human rights. A party is only dangerous when it has access to power and authority, which must be separately substantiated.
Georgian Dream itself has committed numerous violations. For example, senior officials are on the Magnitsky list, including Vakhtang Gomelauri. They have committed unprecedented human rights violations; logically, if applied consistently, the ruling party itself could be banned.
All arguments in the current lawsuit are political. The committee led by Pulujian aimed to create a pretext for this formal procedure.
Is accusing UNM of violating Georgia’s independence and territorial integrity legally dangerous?
This is primarily a political debate related to security and international law. International courts have already ruled on these issues.
Georgian Dream also claims journalists’ rights were violated under UNM. They cited a specific journalist from Batumelebi. What does this indicate?
Everything is selective. Georgian Dream is not seeking truth it aims to provide formal arguments to justify a political punishment.
Unlike UNM, the lawsuit does not discuss banning Lelo or For Georgia. Requesting party bans without arguments is legally unacceptable.
Banning a party has the highest legal standard. The Constitutional Court handles this, not ordinary courts, because it requires exceptionally high proof standards.
Georgian Dream’s goal is punishing political opponents, not applying constitutional mechanisms against actual unconstitutional acts.
The case is heard by Vasil Roinishvili, who was the Chief Prosecutor of Adjara under UNM. Georgian Dream cites cases from his tenure.
Roinishvili cannot be considered impartial. Numerous examples show he routinely endorses government decisions. He lacked independence under UNM and continued the same under Georgian Dream. It is highly probable he will issue decisions favorable to the ruling party.
The Constitutional Court of Georgian Dream is a fully controlled, repressive mechanism. Only the two independent judges deserve credit for defending professional integrity during these difficult times.