Political analyst Irakli Melashvili wrote on social media that on November 6, the Georgian Prosecutor’s Office effectively violated the law when it brought new criminal charges against opposition leaders.
On November 6, criminal prosecution was initiated against Mikheil Saakashvili, Giorgi Vashadze, Nika Gvaramia, Nika Melia, Zurab “Girchi” Japaridze, Elene Khoshtaria, Mamuka Khazaradze, and Badri Japaridze. Melashvili’s commentary responds directly to this decision and explains why, in his assessment, the Prosecutor’s Office itself acted unlawfully.
Batumelebi presents Irakli Melashvili’s full commentary below:
“When a state accuses its own citizens of cooperating with hostile foreign states particularly when this concerns open political relations rather than espionage several fundamental questions must be addressed.
First and foremost, what does the term ‘hostile state’ mean in legal terms as used by the Prosecutor’s Office? Who has officially determined which countries are hostile to Georgia, and on the basis of which legal document? The Prosecutor’s Office is not authorized to make such determinations independently.
In democratic countries, the designation of hostile states is typically defined in national security strategies and conceptual policy documents. These documents outline the criteria for labeling a foreign state as hostile, and they constitute the only legitimate legal basis for assigning such a status.
For example, the United Kingdom’s National Security Strategy (NSS 2025) explicitly refers to ‘hostile states’ and ‘adversaries.’ The U.S. National Security Strategy identifies two main categories of hostile states. The EU’s Strategic Compass (2022), as well as other security policy documents, also address this issue.
I have reviewed Georgia’s political and security documents, and none of them list Western countries as hostile states. On the contrary, Georgia’s National Security Concept explicitly identifies the United States (Article 7.1), the European Union (Article 5.2), and Ukraine (Article 7.2) as strategic partners. This document remains in force and has not been repealed.
The second issue is that even if a government had officially designated certain countries as hostile, it would be obligated to inform its citizens accordingly, so that individuals would be aware that engagement with such states is prohibited. If neither condition exists, on what legal basis can any citizen be charged with ‘cooperation with hostile states’ when, at the time the charges were brought, no official act had established the existence of such hostile states?
What does the term ‘cooperation with a foreign state’ actually mean?
For example, I have openly and publicly criticized both the Shevardnadze and Saakashvili governments for corruption, human rights violations, and political misconduct based on my own political views. I expressed these criticisms not only domestically but also in discussions with foreign actors, in the media, in face-to-face meetings, and at international conferences. I also called on democratic countries to impose measures against officials involved in corruption and mass violations of Georgian citizens’ rights.
If anyone considers this to be ‘cooperation with a foreign state,’ then congratulations you are mentally still living in the Soviet Union. This was a Soviet practice, where criticizing one’s own government to foreigners was prohibited a practice that has since re-emerged in post-Soviet authoritarian regimes such as Russia and Belarus.
For reference, since 1975, following the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, issues such as human rights, free elections, freedom of speech, and media freedom have no longer been considered purely internal matters of states. These issues are subject to international monitoring by participating states and organizations. Georgia is a signatory to this document and therefore has a legal obligation to uphold its principles.
The last people in Georgia to be prosecuted for ‘cooperation with hostile Western imperialist states’ were Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Merab Kostava, and other Georgian dissidents in the early 1980s. At the time, the authorities and the prosecutor’s office claimed that these individuals were supplying hostile foreign channels with information discrediting the Soviet system and leadership, and were engaged in anti-Soviet propaganda. By the late 1980s, even the USSR had abandoned such practices.
To avoid demagoguery, I want to emphasize that I am not equating today’s opposition leaders with the dissidents of that era. I fully recognize that the historical contexts are vastly different. However, this does not change my assessment of the authorities’ actions. I am comparing the policies of the former and current governments, because under the Soviet system, official propaganda similarly labeled those who opposed state policies and defended human rights and democratic values as ‘agents of the West.’
I also assess the reactions of those who today justify the criminal prosecution of opposition leaders for alleged cooperation with hostile states. The arguments and rhetoric of this segment of society are strikingly similar to the Soviet-era television broadcasts in which representatives of ‘labor collectives’ condemned dissidents and later national movement leaders for their ‘anti-state,’ ‘extremist’ activities and their ‘collaboration with imperialist countries.’
Anyone can consult archival footage and see that the arguments are virtually identical. Apparently, they were there back then as well.
So, welcome back – Back in the USSR.”