“The groundwork is being laid for banning a large number of people from political activity, allowing Georgian Dream, much like the Communist Party, to exist as a one-party system,” says lawyer Giorgi Burjanadze. We spoke with him about Georgian Dream’s lawsuit seeking the ban of three political parties.
Giorgi Burjanadze refers to Georgian Dream’s filing as a so-called lawsuit, arguing that it is entirely politicized. The clearest proof of this, he says, comes from Georgian Dream’s own public statements.
“These three parties targeted for prohibition are explicitly named by Georgian Dream as being ‘punished’ because they refuse to recognize falsified parliamentary elections. Refusing to recognize falsified elections is not grounds for banning a political party,” Burjanadze explains.
The lawyer highlights the main danger. After banning parties, Georgian Dream would be able to accuse any politically undesirable individual of having ties to a banned party and prohibit them from political activity.
Batumelebi interviewed Giorgi Burjanadze, who is a legal advisor at the Civil Society Foundation and an associate professor at Free University of Tbilisi.
Mr. Burjanadze, in your assessment, what is the main legal problem with Georgian Dream’s lawsuit seeking to ban opposition parties?
The main problem is that this so-called lawsuit exceeds the constitutional framework. The Constitution of Georgia allows for the banning of political parties, but it sets out an exhaustive list of grounds for doing so. These grounds are narrowly defined and apply only in cases where a party poses a fundamental threat to democracy, for example by inciting various forms of hatred, attempting to overthrow the constitutional order by force, or provoking regional hostility.
First, no such allegations are substantiated here. Second, these three parties targeted for prohibition are explicitly named by Georgian Dream as being “punished” because they refuse to recognize falsified parliamentary elections.
Refusing to recognize falsified parliamentary elections is not a valid ground for banning a party. Georgian Dream openly states that it did not seek the ban of Giorgi Gakharia’s party For Georgia because that party entered parliamentary activity.
We must also consider that amendments to the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court and the Organic Law on Political Associations of Citizens were adopted under an expedited procedure. Following these changes, judicial proceedings were also accelerated.
At the same time, new grounds were introduced allowing a party ban to be used against any individual. I emphasize, against any individual, for the purpose of stripping them of numerous rights, including passive electoral rights, meaning the right to be elected to public office.
These legislative changes expand the powers of the Constitutional Court beyond what is envisaged by the Constitution itself.
Does this mean that if Georgian Dream targets a politically undesirable individual, it can accuse them of links to a banned party and prohibit their political activity?
Absolutely. The aim of all this is not only to ban the three existing political parties, but to create a mechanism to prohibit any individual from political activity in the future.
Do we really have a Constitutional Court? It consists of eight members, of whom only two can be considered independent and genuinely judicial figures, Temur Tughushi and Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze. The remaining six are biased individuals affiliated with Georgian Dream who approve everything. They agree with Georgian Dream in every decision.
Naturally, it is impossible for them to deliver reasoned and impartial rulings, and such outcomes should not be expected.
This unconstitutional legislative framework, created through so-called legislative amendments adopted within three days, contradicts the Constitution and creates the basis for banning numerous individuals from political life, allowing Georgian Dream to exist as a one-party system, similar to the Communist Party.
They have even set special deadlines. For example, the law on illegal surveillance was reviewed in 2017 and remains undecided to this day because no deadline exists. In contrast, decisions on party bans must be issued within nine months.
There is also a fourteen-day deadline for cases concerning specific individuals. After banning certain parties, authorities could simply declare that they dislike you and want to revoke your passive electoral right, meaning your right to be elected to a political position. The Constitutional Court would then be tasked with ruling on that individual within fourteen days.
You frequently cover the activities of the Constitutional Court. I cannot recall a single case where it resolved an issue within fourteen days. Even deciding on a presidential impeachment requires one month.
In seeking to justify the ban of the United National Movement, Georgian Dream cites specific cases. Is human rights violations a valid legal argument for banning a party?
An isolated violation of individual rights cannot serve as grounds for banning a party unless it reaches a scale that threatens the democratic and constitutional order. In this respect, the lawsuit exceeds constitutionally defined limits.
The temporal factor must also be considered. A party that has not been in power for thirteen years poses a lower risk of committing human rights violations. A party becomes dangerous when it holds power and wields authority. Therefore, this risk must be substantiated separately.
Georgian Dream itself has committed numerous violations. For example, for the first time in history, senior Georgian Dream officials, including Vakhtang Gomelauri, have been included on the Magnitsky list. They have committed unprecedented human rights violations. By that logic, they should be seeking the ban of their own party.
All of the arguments currently being constructed are political. Tsulukiani’s commission was also designed to fabricate a pretext for this lawsuit and formal procedure.
Is Georgian Dream’s accusation that the United National Movement undermined independence and territorial integrity particularly dangerous? Could this create new grounds for blaming Georgia for starting a war, despite existing international court decisions?
This issue is more for politicians to assess, as it pertains to national security. Even the discussions we heard at Tsulukiani’s commission were extremely dangerous and clearly carry significant risks.
Georgian Dream’s lawsuit also refers to violations of journalists’ rights during UNM’s time in power. For example, instead of naming Batumelebi as an outlet, it names a specific journalist. What does this indicate to you?
Everything is selective. Georgian Dream is not genuinely seeking the truth.
The goal is to introduce formal arguments and claim that something was violated, without any sincere intention of justice.
Unlike the United National Movement, the lawsuit does not even outline arguments for banning Lelo and Akhali. What does it mean to demand a party ban without providing arguments?
Banning a political party requires the highest legal standard.
Historically, this mechanism did not exist in constitutional law. It emerged after World War II, recognizing that when a party created for democratic purposes exceeds its mandate and becomes a threat to democracy itself, it must be removed from the constitutional order.
This is why only a constitutional court, not ordinary courts, has the authority to issue such decisions. These proceedings must meet exceptionally high standards of proof.
Georgian Dream’s aim is to punish political opponents. As I mentioned earlier, Papuashvili explicitly stated that Gakharia’s party was not punished because it joined the political process.
This is an attempt to punish those who refuse to recognize elections, rather than to apply constitutional mechanisms to those genuinely engaged in unconstitutional conduct.
This case is being reviewed by Judge Vasil Roinishvili, who served as Adjara’s chief prosecutor during UNM’s rule. Georgian Dream cites cases such as the Roïn Shavadze case, in which Roinishvili was a prosecutor, as grounds for banning UNM. What does this signify?
Vasil Roinishvili can hardly be considered an impartial and independent judge. On the contrary, numerous facts show that he consistently delivers decisions favorable to the authorities.
During UNM’s time in power, he held key positions in the justice system and was supposed to act independently. He failed to do so. He has continued the same role under Georgian Dream.
I am confident that in this case as well, Roinishvili will continue his work without hesitation and issue decisions favorable to Georgian Dream. This assessment is based on numerous past examples.
Regarding impartiality, it would be more appropriate for the plaintiff itself to request Roinishvili’s recusal, since he served as a prosecutor during UNM’s rule and cannot be considered impartial.
Georgian Dream’s Constitutional Court is a purely subordinate, repressive mechanism. In my view, it has nothing in common with a court, except for two independent judges who deserve great respect for maintaining their professional integrity in these difficult times.